I have been keeping a eye on this video for over a week and it hasn't worked once. I will be re-uploading this video. I have a feeling that it somehow got corrupted on youtubes end...
@8real Cool, bc I'm really interested in seeing this. All of these people who think that aluminum glows bright orange in sunlight, or that it would mix with the office equipment, etc., need to be set straight.
@8real Also, if you've seen the video of the molten metal pouring from the South tower, you can see that it lost heat very quickly; it rapidly cooled upon leaving the towers, and only remained orange for maybe half of a second tp a second.
That, and it didn't touch a cold surface almost immediately after beginning it's fall, like your aluminum did to the pan.
Are you kidding me? Sorry, I have videos that clearly contradict this statement. NIST even admits it was bright orange. They speculated - without any testing - that it was aluminum mixed with debris....
8real?feature=mhum#p/u/6/_0o__xzKHKQ
"NIST stated "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials which can display an orange glow"
@8real Um, what? Have you SEEN the video of Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower? I have. The metal only stayed orange for a very short time; maybe half a second to two seconds.
And, testing or not, that there would be debris is obvious; not only was the metal from an airliner with organic material in it, but the South Tower was an office building.
When the Plane crashed, it bunched all of the organic material against the wall; if the metal poured around that, some will get in.
@8real Come to think of it, that may have been what held the metal back as it was heated up above 1800F; The bunched up debris may have formed a kind of "dam" that slowed the flow of the metal as it poured towards the window.
Listen, I would love to discuss this with you, but I'm very busy. I don't want this to interfere with my life.
@ViperXXXXXXX In your video, the aluminum was glowing orange from a second to two seconds, tops, and that was only when a large amount of it spilled at one time.
Why was it glowing? When Aluminum reaches certain temperatures, it glows. There were kerosene fires in the WTC that constantly burned, heating the aluminum, at around 800C for almost an hour. If you ask me, the metal was much hotter than 1800F when we saw it in the video, not to mention that some of it may have been organic material.
@ViperXXXXXXX In your video, the aluminum was glowing orange from a second to two seconds, tops, and that was only when a large amount of it spilled at one time.
Why was it glowing? When Aluminum reaches certain temperatures, it glows. There were kerosene fires in the WTC that constantly burned, heating the aluminum, at around 800C for almost an hour. If you ask me, the metal was much hotter than 1800F when we saw it in the video, not to mention that some of it may have been organic material.
@someguy018 - It was more than a second, time it. It was also in daylight, and organic material does not cause molten aluminum to glow, this was tested, and proven false.
@ViperXXXXXXX I DID time it, and it lasted for around 2 seconds, which I said that it may have lasted at at points, in my previous comment.
I NEVER said that Organic material was what caused it to glow, you liar. You're putting words in my mouth. It was the fact that the Aluminum was heated at 1500-1800 degrees fahrenheit for an hour which caused it to glow.
I'm not trying to fool anyone here, just giving you the facts. Unlike you, I don't lie about what people say.
@ViperXXXXXXX I agree, NIST should have done testing before saying that the metal was glowing from Organic material. This statement was made very soon after 9/11, and as time passes, our knowledge of information grows, leading us to reform our opinions.
The fact is that Aluminum should be expected to glow after being heated in a kerosene fire for nearly an hour, and that some of what we saw may not have been aluminum at all. Steven Jones admitted that embers added to the glow of molten metal.
@someguy018 - The amount of time it was in the fire will not make metal hotter than the fire itself...
You really need to study this, before commenting to me. I have a manufacturing, welding, engineering, and psychology degree.
Which means I'm smart enough to know what I'm talking about, and smart enough to know that you're grasping to straws, and continuing to debate in fear of simply being wrong.
In another video, 8real melted aluminum to above 1800 degrees fahrenheit, and the temperature was rising quickly.
A propane stove may be able to burn at 2000 degrees fahrenheit, depending on the surface.
I'm not grasping straws, I'm just showing you the facts; aluminum CAN glow, the Aluminum WAS heated at 1800 degrees fahrenheit for a while, and when we saw the aluminum, it only glowed for half a second nomally, and only longer if there was much of it.
@ViperXXXXXXX I will say the same thing to you as I said to 8real; i simply do not have time to be arguing about this. Even if I did, then I wouldn't waste it arguing with a liar such as yourself.
If you have seen videos of Aluminum in a refinery, you can see that it CAN glow orange: /watch?v=DiQOMJvQTpg
Also, unlike 8real, who was mostly respectful and kind, you are acting like a stupid little kid who insults others for disagreeing with you for logical reasons.
@ViperXXXXXXX The fact is, that there are so many unknowns and other variables in place that we cannot know WHY the aluminum burned the way it did, necessarily, but we can know that it did.
If it is molten steel, then why is it only coming from the corner of the building that the Fuselage of the 767 is resting at?
Also, if it was molten steel, then why would they melt the steel with nitrate in the first place, when they did not have to to cause the towers to collapse?
*You KNOW it's aluminum....That is interesting! Because, even NIST doesn't "know" what it is. They speculated on it, but that's all! No testing!
*Did it ever occur to you that maybe the fuselage may have knocked something down or dislodged something?
*It would be molten iron...Not steel. You are starting to ask irrelevant questions. The topic I deal with is, what does aluminum look like at 1800F. Now, stop spamming my video. If you have something constructive to add, fine.
"The fact is, that there are so many unknowns and other variables in place that we cannot know WHY the aluminum burned the way it did, necessarily, but we can know that it did."
"but we can know that it did."
How do "we" know that exactly? You haven't offered anything to support that statement whatsoever.
@ViperXXXXXXX Besides, you're the one who started commenting to ME, not the other way around.
If you cannot grasp facts, such as that Aluminum CAN glow like the metal from the towers did, that it CAN do so in a bright environment (such as in the video I gave you), that It was ONLY coming from a place with aluminum, that it would make sense for it to last for the time that it did (from half a second to two seconds, and even then only with large amounts) then you are a shame to your degree.
Stop trying to act like anybody has said "Aluminum can not glow"...Because that is not true!
It's like me saying "Hey, my sky is black" And you are like "No, it's blue!".. Then I respond "Well, it's 12am here, so it's black" and - pay attention now - you say "STOP TRYING TO SAY IT'S NOT BLUE, YOU ARE A SHAME TO YOUR DEGREE"....
Did that make sense? I never once said the sky couldn't be blue! Aluminum CAN burn bright orange! Just not at 1800F flowing in daylight conditions!
@ViperXXXXXXX If you can't grasp obvious facts, like the fact that Aluminum CAN glow the way that it did in this video, that it CAN glow in a bright environment (such as in that video i gave you), that it was coming from a place with aluminum (the fuselage of the 767), that the fires were burning hot enough to heat it to a point where it WOULD glow like that, and that it makes sense for the glow to last as long as it did; a couple of seconds; then you are a shame to your degree.
Do me a favor, go make your own video and debate it! It's not that freaking hard to see what aluminum looks like at 1800F. GO LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Not inside of a crucible, but poured out during the day. Until then, you are nothing more than a spam bot on my video. As it stands, you are making a fool out of yourself to anybody that has done actual research on this subject.
@ViperXXXXXXX I have work to do, so i will not be able to respond to your lies anymore. Have fun, living in your fantasy world where logic does not exist.
Please, look at the rest of my videos. Specifically, this one
watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ&feature=related
Hope this helps. Also, please remember that 1800F is a stretch, considering the context of this debate. The molten metal would have HAD to flowed away from the heat source - in order to flow out the window -, lowering the temperature dramatically. Hope this helps.
@8real I watched your video, and it was interesting.
However, the Aluminum from the 767 which crashed into the tower was melted by a fire at about 1500-1600 F (at one point reaching 1800), fueled by both kerosene and organic material, for about 50 minutes, as opposed to a propane stove, which you were likely using.
Also, seeing as there was a much larger quantity of the metal in the crash, it most likely didn't lose heat as quickly as yours did.
The aluminum was silvery as it hung off the lip of the crucible. The crucible is clearly bright orange in the video and heated up to 1800F. That is because aluminum is highly reflective.
Not sure what you think could have been holding the aluminum in place, but if we have learned anything, it is that if something is liquid, it rolls where gravity takes it. Aluminum melts at 1200F, what holds it in place until 1800F, then releases it out the window? That is the question I am asking.
@8real Yeah, but was the Fire from your stove 1800F, or was it just the aluminum?
The fire that melted the aluminum was 1800F, not the metal itself. The metal was probably much hotter for most of the time (seeing as how it was subjected to that temperature for several minutes) and cooled to around 1800F when it reached the window, cooling further during the fall.
The metal pouring out of the tower was filmed 50 minutes after the crash; if you ask me, the metal (continued)
@8real (continued) was probably pouring out of the window for much longer, but the metal that wasn't pouring out was heated further by the fire, to above 900C, and then cooling to 900C once becoming visible.
However, as I've said before, I'm no expert; this is just my guess.
Blablablablablablablabla, blablablablabla. Blablablablabla. What happens? NOTHING..Makes me kinda wanna join them instead and just bomb everything just because its fun when things say booom, and others ''not meself'' scream in pain. Makes me feel so ,,Powerfull..Soon whe are so many so next olympics will will make a poleshift because off the weightshift Muahahahah..Gotta get rid off the overpopulated masses..Boomchakelake boom..Doesnt matter anyways whe all just dust in the wind.
The law says check for eksplosives...But whe dont even have to, cause simple logic is enough! Several eksperts on the day said there had to have been eksplosives.SEVERAL MILITARY EKSPERTS! You debunker might win some on ya bull..But BULL is what it is and ya know it..And if not grow some brain..Most b a hollow felling...There are so many things ..Just the bullshi. lies on the DAY. Whe could never imagine thats why whe had a drill corncerning the exact same scenario. LOL they are STUPID to! you?
So its redicoulus..But All other building had been checked BECAUSE And invesigations DIDNT follow the LAW..But off course when you make the laws you dont have to follow them, you just make a law that says you dont have to..Like Bush and Berlusconi..Tornament b upon their souls,,LOL not needed they are patological sick anyways and proberly wouldnt understand AHAHAHA. To bad their dicease is like a virus spreading to other lamenecks to!
What a bad experiment. A larger amount of alluminum cools at the same rate as a smaller amount of alluminum. This would mean that the larger amount of alluminum would stay red hot longer than the smaller amount. a few tons does not cool as fast as a few ounces. An example of this is an ice cube vs a block of ice. They will not melt in the same amount of time, the larger one will take longer to warm and melt.
sigh... i c u failed science before u even learned it. Since when has Quantity been related to color?? I suggest u look up wien's law & some chemistry. each one of ur statements is filled with utter ignorance-
@swu880 Quantity relates to color because the hotter a metal gets the closer it is to being red hot. If it is red hot it has been heated to a certain temperature. This experiment you are watching suggests that several tons of alluminum cool at a faster rate than a few ounces. It cools at the same rate so naturally thealluminum would take longer to cool down and would then stay red hot for longer. That also isn't chemistry, that would be basic common sense physics.
sigh... there is NO such variable as quantity fool! go pick up a chem book that is not written or associated with nist! 10 newt. of iron and 10000 newt of iron at the same temperature, radiate the same color- period! The difference is ENERGY- repeat after me- ENERGY.
Quantity in no way effects color- there is no relation between quantity & color- if there was, then wien's law never could be deduced
geez- u foolish 'clingers' can't even use decent logic & science - u keep fabricating bullshit reasons... like u tried to claim first that molten aluminum @ 1800F burns yellow/red. Then u falsely claim that it mixes w/ organic materials to burn yellow/red- each claim is more ridiculous than the last
@swu880 A few tons of any substance always has more thermal energy if they are at the same temp than a smaller amount. Here's a little backyard experiment even you can do! Take a block of ice and an ice cube, time to see which one takes longer to melt.
sigh... the color radiated of any blackbody object is dependant NOT on quantity but on energy! u seriously fail to grasp such a basic concept- u can NOT achieve an orange glow from aluminum @ merely 1800F! no matter how many tons of aluminum u hav, it will not glow orange&red at 1800F. The energy though varies depending on the temperature & the mass.
but there is NO relation between quantity & color. it is temperature/energy and color!!!!!
yes 1000newt of iron @ 2100F has more energy than 10newt of iron at same temp. But! the color of the iron remain exactly the same. moreover, not only does the 1000newt have more energy, it also REQUIRES MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE!
u NEED greater amounts of energy to maintain the color(temp) for the more massive material. Where can all that energy come from? definitely NOT an office fire!
stop blindly clinging to some 'official bullshit' & look @ the basic facts- it aint aluminum! Even if it somehow miraculously was 'aluminum', according to wien's law, the radiating object must be like 1000F hotter than it is purported to be. Why? aluminum aint orange at 1800F- it starts turnin more reddish/yellow at about 2700 or so
@swu880 Even your master Dr. Jones shows that at 1800F aluminum glows red. The more energy in something the longer it takes to cool down, that is what I'm saying.
jones show that it is silvery not red. where are u lookin? Everyone who is human knows that aluminum is silvery, and at 1800F the metal is still silvery!
But moreover, the fires were INEFFICIENT w/ heavy smoke & soot! so the fires could NOT even approach anywhere near 1800F!
investigate fool! investigate! use logic, use supboena, arrest & detain suspects, interrogate, puruse data, investigate! that is what a REAL investigation will turn out-
not sure exactly- but it definitely is not aluminum- a real investigation will turn out all the precise facts! but the offical bullshit is really bullshit! none of it is logical or accountable. aluminum definitely is silvery not red/orange & no office fire could ever even reach temperature close to 1800F as u CLINGERS purport- especially when the fire is HEAVY with smoke & soot
@swu880 NIST isn't going to be right about everything, just because they don't get everything right doesn't mean they are doing it for a coverup. It could be molten glass or other factors we don't know about. I can also tell you it is not iron or steel.
sigh- yes & maybe martians & aliens decided to use their laser beams to hold the building & then use a neutron gun to blow through all the steel columns thus allowing for wtc7 to go into freefall for 2.5 seconds
we dont know. hey & maybe when the guy next door is shot tin the head- maybe he just had a bullet teleported straight into his head.
none of this stuff can truly b accounted for without the use of major external forces or explosive materials! o thats right- they never tested the site for explosives. why dont we go test it ourselves? o thats right- all the evidence was illegally shipped off & melted
@swu880 If there were explosive used there would be clear evidence of it. No weakening cuts were found, no undetonated detcord, explosives in the central collumn would be prematurely detonated.
not quite- did they ever check for actual explosives AND ACCELERANTS? NO! they said 'hey uh it couldnt be rdx cuz um yeah- so no explosvies'- that is NOT investigating!
geez- its evident by all the mass amounts of energy that external force is necessary! wtc7 freefall accel 2.5 sec, thermal hotspots of thousands degrees weeks&months after, this molten metal of some sort & the self destruction of all the buildings!
explosive energy is a MUST- its a fundamental LAW- no way around it even if u have congress legislate around it! cant achieve freefall accel w/o it! thus they ought have tested for it but NEVER did!
why? well do u know the relation between white-house & nist? do u? nist is the white house puppet- literally! go look up the relation between nist & the white house & u will see how "OBJECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE, and ACCURATE" these folks are
@swu880 RDX isn't used in commercial demo, it is used in manufactre of C4. C4, detcord (PETN) and dynamite are generally used and all of which would be prematurely detonated or destroyed (even RDX). The accelerant would the jet fuel. if you are referring to thermite then tell how it was ignited, it takes between 2000F and 2200F to ignite you said yourself that the fires couldn't have reached 1800 F. Also any remote device would be destroyed by the plane impact.
sigh- they never checked for it- never never never- unless u check for it, u cant account for it! period
moreover the explosive energy is a MUST- u cant break this law no matter what excuse u try to give. remember- unlikely is not same as impossible-
It may be 'unlikely' (more like ur ignorant) that someone planted explosives, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve all those phenomenon especially freefall of wtc7 without use of explosive/accelerant!
jet fuel? really- wow do u ever think before u speak? most of jet fuel vaporized in that big black orange fireball! And the rest burned away within 10-15minutes. so what jet fuel u talkin about? And also- an open fuel random jet fuel fire- w/ heavy black smoke- hardly can burn hot at all. in fact a kerosene/gas stove is probably far hotter than the random open jet fuel fire.
@swu880 Jet fuel is still an accellerant. You are the one who is ignorant in explosives, I'm trained in explosives and have extensive experience. I can say without a doubt no explosives were used, I didn't ever say it was likely, it is sure.
@clarkscoolskool lol- what jet fuel u talkin about? seriously each one of ur statement sound more ludicrous. EXPLOSIVE ENERGY IS A MUST- physics dictate it. no judge may overrule it.
@swu880 A plane crashed into the towers, did you not know that. Explosive energy is not a must, the planes would have dealt enough energy to take down the building because it hit in the right spot. Explosves couldn't have been used.
sigh- i see u failed physics. watch the vids i & read the article i gave u.
obect in motion tend to stay in motion; object at rest tend to stay at rest; unless an external force is applied
After the plane 'hit' , the buildin remain standin for hours. Thus the energy had already dissipated & so we see the buildin continue to stay at rest. if there were NO other explosions, the buildin would likely continue to stand for days, weeks, months.
@swu880 I deny explosives because it is impossible. Explosives would not have worked. I know you will deny it but fires burning at 1800 F and a structure that has been hit by a large aircraft will eventually collapse. Clearly you did not ever get any training and have no experience with explosies.
@clarkscoolskool did u even look @ the paper & the video? it is impossible to achieve freefall acceleration w/o use of explosives. none of the phenomenon can be explained without external energy being applied!
There is NO fooling physics- in measurin velocity & acceleration & the forces on the buildin, it is evident that at least wtc7 required explosives. moreover the thermal phenomenon of hotspots @ ground zero can NOT be explained w/o external energy
@swu880 Show me where they demonstrated that explosive & accelerants were NOT used- show me the proof that they had tested all the debris & found no explosives/accelerants present- i am not talkin about 1 or 2 explosives, im talkin about ALL explosive/accelerants! if u can't show me it, we have a serious problem
go try to replicate the purported 'fire induced collapse' seen in wtc7, go see if u can achieve symmetric parallel freefall w/o usin any external accelerants & energy
Even getting fire to burn through a couple pieces of wood columns simultaneously to cause a parallel collapse is quite unlikely b/c fire is WILD & organic. now imagine steel hidden behind all the drywall & everything & the concrete & glass & tiles, etc. its impossible for the steel to b effected significantly by mere fires
@swu880 I don't have report, this is from my own experience that explosives couldn't have been used. There was fire and the building was damaged by falling debri from the other buildings. To take down the twin towers one would need to know exactly where the plaabes would hit in order to make it look real, that is something you could not do. Go fill a building with explosives, fly a plane into it and see what happens.
@swu880 lol- its also quite funny u say 'there is fire & falling debris damage from the other buildings". well have u ever looked at the other building fool? wtc5,6 were all INFINITELY more damaged than the wtc7 was. And the fires were much greater. But guess what- it didn't collapse! it didn't go into no symmetric freefall!
@swu880 I've actually seen the other building, Last I was there they were still repairing the broken glass on them. WTC 7 was a different building, hence you can't compare it to others becaus it was a different design. WHy don't you go look up some of the explosives I've mentioned, I'm sure you can find some ok info on the internet, I'd be careful with wikipedia though.
sigh... u see each one of ur 'retort' is only based on some bullshit 'unlikelihood' of the event. You use ill reason behind ur statements. firstly explosives are DIVERSE! there are countless kinds & each havin different effect. They can be melded, changed, modified, adjusted, etc
each material has a different ignition point. And materials may be further modified to change ignition points & such depending on their mixtures etc. Can u do that w/ a random wild organic fire? NO
See c4 plastic explosive dont necessarily explode when put in fire. they can be tossed, stomped & thrown in a fire place. But they wont explode unless certain charge is placed on it
And c4 is a really old & kinda outdated explosive- been around since vietnam era- dont u think? c4 is only 1 kind of explosive- dont u think people could find super advanced ways of hyping various explosives?
(note- im not sayin c4 is not effective. but it is very old & there are a lot cooler stuff to use that go boom)
@swu880 It is not based off unlikelyhood. You are right, there are many different kinds of explosives but there are certain properties that they will have. They all react to pressure (or rather shock), heat, or both. because of these properties that any explosive will have (atleast one of ) it would make it impossible to fly a plane into the structure and start fires without either premature detonation or destruction of explosive device.
Thats a foolish claim- u havent tested for it yet u claim there is none. That's like closing your eyes & blind folding yourself & saying there is no light in the room. Unless u actually LOOK, u cant find a damn thing! seriously- all my points still stand- explosive energy is a must. if u saw the video it becomes evident
@swu880 No it's not, The planes and heat would have detonated or destroyed all explosives in the area around it. It's not possible. Someone liek you who has not a clue what you are talking about wouldn't understand.
sigh... did u even watch the video? david chandler make it very clear- freefall can't occur w/o some instantaneous external force being precisely applied to a building!
u never checked for it- so stop denying it! hey if u want to stay in a dark room w/ ur eyes closed, go ahead, but don't say that there is no such thing as light when u urself refuse to look for it!
@swu880 nist neglected the national fire investigation manual of 2001. They totally ignored all the protocals & procedures that a fire investigation should incur- never checked for accelerants & explosives. So no fucking duh they wont 'see any' since they never checked!
@swu880 And you don't know anything about explosives and you say that is the culprit. I'm going with over 100,000 experts who agree with me and you are going with about 1000.
lol so? u sayin ALL the eyewitnesses were lying? u sayin that the physics of the collapse is lying? u sayin that a GOVT PAID AGENCY of the white house is telling the truth? wow- u never even watched a single vid- go watch ALL ALL ALL of them then come back & tell me what each video was about, what was said by the presenters & the materials not ur opinions
really? wow ur ignorance is phenomenal! there have been explosions heard throughout the day- eyewitness reports & everything. news reporters reported hearin explosions! u deny all that? like nist! liar, ignorant fools & blind sheep!
@swu880 I don't really care about your three questions because I've cme to beleive everything you claim ahs come from youtube. Just because people heard "explosions" does not mean the towers were taken down by explosives. There was no physical evidence of explosives found in the debri.
lol u dont even know basic physics laws. How the hell can u make any damn statement about there being no explosives when u dont even know the motion of the building?
lol u dont even know what forces were present that day- u have never measured them & u still continue to blabber away? lol
@swu880 I have watched so many videos that I am tired of watching them. Have you measured them? When did you get your degree in civil engineering? Or demolition? Or physics? I not saying the witnesses were lying I'm saying they may not know what they heard.
sadly u are like a holocaust denier. u close ur eyes, turn off the light, say its impossible & there is no light in the room. Without even lookin at the energy transfer, u claim there is no explosive or external energy present on 9/11
Your like an idiot who got shot by a 9mm w/ silencer. Then closing your eyes, u say that u were not shot but stabbed by a knife. And if u were shot, u would have heard it & saw a huge flash. lol
@swu880 My lack of knowledge? Go do some research on explosives and then study them for ten years and then tell me I have a lack of knowledge of explosives. What accelerant are you refering to? Thermite? What?
@clarkscoolskool u use poor logic to dismiss cause of explosives
energy exerted by the wtc7 in freefall dictates that there must have been some CONTINUOUS INSTANTANEOUS PRECISE external mechanism that removed all the supports simultaneously & precisely to cause freefall. Without checkin, u say that theres no explosives. u never checked! how the hell can u deny it? especially when both the physics dictate it & the fire investigation manual stipulate it?
u check for ANY & ALL ACCELERANTS AND EXPLOSIVES- IF U MISS A SINGLE ONE, U FAILED UR INVESTIGATION! dude go learn how to use good logic- not clingers bullshit!
@swu880 Of course you know more than I do about explosives right? You're youtube degree is really impressive. You do jot have to investigate for all explosives because it is impossible to use them if a plane crashes into the building. You are the only one who is willingly ignorant. Come back with something good or disprove what I have to say abotu explosives. I got my knowledge about controlled demo from experience you got yours from someone who doesn't have experience in controlled demo.
@swu880 Exotic kinds? Do you even know what you are talking about? NIST doesn't test for it because it is rediculous. As I explained before I can't watch the videos because I have no sound on my computer (I can wtach them I just can't hear anything). It is not worth the time and money to search for something that is already impossible. RDX is not BTW "exotic", it is used in making C4 and other plastiqe explosive. The properties of the explosives tell the whole story. It wouldn't work.
@clarkscoolskool go watch the fuckin vids already before you come back- geez ur ignorance is phenomenal- explosions have been heard. yet the nist NEVER tested for them
chandler showed that explosive energy is a requisite- yet baboons like u keep clinging to som false notion that random fires were able to be focused & controlled
also note: i didn't say u lack knowledge, i said u lack logic LOGIC LOGIC! But then again, u do seriously lack any decent foundation in physics. go back to high school little kid
@clarkscoolskool see by nist's erroneous claims, somehow 1/t = 1/(t^2) And somehow gravity went on a hiatus for a couple hours & the fire was able to be controlled into causing precise damage & burn continuously in 1 place for hours on end- although fires never really stay in 1 place for more than about 20-30 minutes
lol u can hear the explosions urself- if u watched the vids, its evident. are u even human? lol u lack any brain capacity to just click a link & watch it & analyze
@swu880 Of course there is external energy, a plane crashed into the towers and fire burned fr hours. Actually my computer got a virus and I don't have any sound on it so at the moment I can't watch most of your videos. There is no physical evidence of explosives, to weakening cuts, no left over explosives, no det cord traces found in the rubble and evidence of pemature detonation on the structure.
I am no expert so this is just a suggestion. Could bombs be planted every 4, 5 or even 10 floors? Is it hard to believe that some other sort of demolition took place?
@8real personally, I think the whole thermite is totally bullshit. Thermite is a non-explosive material that burns slower than gasoline fumes. Thermite cannot take down a building without using excessive amounts of it. It would not take that much explosive to actually take down the building, I mean it would be alot but to actually take it down it wouldn't need it on every floor. The problem I have is not with concealing the explosive but just the fact that it would be too unreliable.
the explosives would be prematurely detonated or destroyed. To destroy concrete often they use dynamite, it is highly reactive to shock and heat and would be prematurely detonated either by the plane impact or by the fires. For shaped charges often c4 is used, although the shock or heat alone would not detonate it the heat would destroy it or ignite the blasting cap. The Gov't wouldn't plan something like this, it's too complicated they would fly planes with explosives in them into the WTC.
@8real Clarks is right, it wasn't a bomb. The impact pulled the fire insulation off the steel structurals, which were weakened by the fire because of it. Other floors still had their fireproofing, and so did not get weakened. When the weakened floors collapsed, the weight of the floors above came crashing down on the floors below. Then it's a question of inertia and gravity against the strength of those floors, and the floors didn't stand a chance - hence the progressive collapse.
Why is it so hard to believe? And, not to mention all the first hand accounts of people describing bombs and explosions BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the attacks....Whether it was a bomb, thermite or whatever....Something had to create pools of molten metal....You say jet fuel and fire? If not, then please explain! There was a FEMA report that showed a steel column literally melted with holes in it! Please, explain! Google: APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination.
I find it pretty funny when people KNOW for a fact a plane filled with fuel is enough to bring down skyscrapers....When we bring up building 7 and they simply say, DEBRIS, not a plane, but DEBRIS was enough to bring down WTC 7. Again, hours after it had been struck. C'MON, man! 2 totally different styles in the way they fell as well. WTC 7 was hit from debris and it is a bottom down collapse. And the towers where obviously top down! Why? Did WTC 7 get hit in some magical way?
@8real WTC 7 was a fire that burned for hours, started because two massive burning buildings had just fallen next to it, and they didn't have the resources or the ability to fight it. You can burn any building for hours and it will eventually collapse. In this case, the lowest floors failed and the top of the building went into a 7 floor free fall and then hit the lowest portions of itself, so it fell mostly onto its own footprint.
@Lessinath No building actually have burned all combustable materials and still stood.Not ONE single case a steelframe fell...And where is the energy. Highest floors where less solid. WTC's got more solid the lower you went. So 20 storys above could under maximum condition smash 20 floors below..The collaps would have haulted..The only way your science makes it work..Have the scoundrels to do all the work. Like having a criminal evaluating own crime and making the sentence! CRAAAB!
@TheoriginalGrumphy You've made yourself look like a fool - you obviously know nothing about structural engineering. Steel frames of buildings DO get damaged in intense fires, always. No exceptions. You also do not understand gravity, or kinetic energy. As the building falls, it gains immense kinetic energy as well as still being pulled on by gravity. By looking at it as a the top of the building falling on the whole building, you are doing it wrong, it fails floor by floor.
@TheoriginalGrumphy Furthermore, the incidents you name did not occur in bush's presidency, or bush just continued them, officially or not. A million is not a large army for a country this size. And to restate it, because it's been said but is just going over your head: No steel that has just had its fireproofing removed can withstand an intense fire and still bear that heavy of a load. Intense fire changes the chemistry of the steel itself. It is physically impossible.
@TheoriginalGrumphy And finally, if the government really could cover things up as well as you claim they could - which they can't, not even close - something always leaks, for example, look at the tens of thousands of documents on wikileaks, then don't you think they would have just shot the buildings with missiles from offshore, which would have brought them down near instantly, and claimed them as terrorist missiles? No, you don't agree? Well, shows how you fail logic completely and forever.
@TheoriginalGrumphy To top it all off, you still haven't explained away the phone calls made from the hijacked airlines describing the terrorists, why the terrorists claimed responsibility for something they didn't do, why no other countries noticed something was funny about all of this, and why, above all else, you so strongly believe that a straight down collapse of a building is impossible when it has been clearly seen before even outside of these towers, even before these towers were built.
@Lessinath Furthermore Nigeraqua, San Salvador, Panama, Quatemala,irst Iran intervention. Cia smugling drugs into USA, allowing medical experiments on own population. Tortue Wiretappings Indefinat detention without trial etc etc..One 1.000.000 privately employd securety forces after 911..Looks alot like STAZI! 911 was the very least a standdown opperation wich amounts to the same.Bush in office with FRAUD. You should wtach out for holes and vehicles, sleepwalking is dangerous!
it sound like uve only played w/ firecrackers - explosives are definitely moldable- they can be adjusted, changed, played around w/. And they can be very precise & cause instantaneous damage. Fire = slow, gradual, random & organic. it would be foolish to think fire could caus instantaneous precise damage as nist would hav us believe
if it did, then may as well throw out all the demolition companies & just light a couple matches & watch a steel frame buildin come straight down!
No, you are wrong. We never said that the fires couldn't have reached. Understand, if you believe the official story, you must admit that the fires where a combination of fuel and office furniture. NIST reproduced an exact replica of a WTC floor and dumped "jet fuel" in it and they found, that the fuel rapidly burned off in minutes. It is universally accepted that 1800F is the hottest the fires could have been if the official story where true. And the same test confirmed this!
You say "It could be molten glass or other factors we don't know about. I can also tell you it is not iron or steel."
How about you go heat glass to 1800F and see what happens? Considering most types of glass don't melt until 2500F, it is almost pointless to suggest it is glass. It was done here to prove that molten glass and aluminum will not mix.
Then you state that is not steel or iron...How did you come to that conclusion? Please, enlighten me!
Its like having someone stabbed to death & then a bunch of officials in fancy suits say the guy was shot to death. Obviously the guy was stabbed to death & those who believe otherwise are ignorant&naive. Then you have idiots askin, 'well if he wasn't shot to death, then who killed him?' That is how ridiculous the clinger logic is
We don't know exactly what it is- but definitely it is not as purported!
if this was a truly free & open society living under the constitution, that fact alone should be enough to stir up a REAL investigation that is objective & accountable to the people.
the claims made by nist & clingers get more ridiculous each take. aluminum dont mix w/ organics, it is not purple, orange,red,or green at 1800F! And that definitely is not paint fallin out of the buildin. can only be some kind of molten metal!
Understanding that much allows us to corroborate it w/ the fact about numerous hot spots @ ground zero WEEKS & MONTHS after 9/11. it is impossible to account for any of these events by naively denying the presence of external forces
Does a large block of ice have the same visual characteristics as a small block of ice? The point of this video is very simple. will "debris" uniformly mix with aluminum to give it a "glowing orange" appearance as NIST suggested without ANY experiment! NIST already knows what aluminum looks like at 1800F...Hence the reason they suggested it was mixed with debris.
@8real specically7 I was referring to an experiment that Jones did where he heated molyen alluminum to red hot and poured it and showed how quickly it changed color.
Good and important video! There are still tons of idiots who just can't get the fact, there was molten iron pouring from the WTC, because of Thermate.
Your statement does not take into consideration the context: At what temperature does this occur? and what heat source could have produced this temperature? In no way does the orange aluminum hypothesis match the claims NIST made. Please try to be careful not to make these mistakes. Propagandists rely upon people not being careful in their thinking.
Every time I try to watch this video it always says "an error has occurred." I don't have this problem with any other video. Weird...
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
@corruptedsilence
I have been keeping a eye on this video for over a week and it hasn't worked once. I will be re-uploading this video. I have a feeling that it somehow got corrupted on youtubes end...
8real 8 months ago
@8real Cool, bc I'm really interested in seeing this. All of these people who think that aluminum glows bright orange in sunlight, or that it would mix with the office equipment, etc., need to be set straight.
corruptedsilence 8 months ago
For more about molten metal at Ground Zero see my videos:
The 9/11 "Deep Mystery" and the Crazy Engineers
and
Incendiary Experiments
punxsutawneybarney 8 months ago
Continued to glow at the same brightness until it went out of view, where it continued glowing, which was hundreds of ft.
Study emissivity a bit and get back to me.
ViperXXXXXXX 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX Like I said before, that was because a huge amount of it spilled all at once, for some reason.
someguy018 1 year ago
@8real Also, if you've seen the video of the molten metal pouring from the South tower, you can see that it lost heat very quickly; it rapidly cooled upon leaving the towers, and only remained orange for maybe half of a second tp a second.
That, and it didn't touch a cold surface almost immediately after beginning it's fall, like your aluminum did to the pan.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
Are you kidding me? Sorry, I have videos that clearly contradict this statement. NIST even admits it was bright orange. They speculated - without any testing - that it was aluminum mixed with debris....
8real?feature=mhum#p/u/6/_0o__xzKHKQ
"NIST stated "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials which can display an orange glow"
8real 1 year ago
@8real Um, what? Have you SEEN the video of Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower? I have. The metal only stayed orange for a very short time; maybe half a second to two seconds.
And, testing or not, that there would be debris is obvious; not only was the metal from an airliner with organic material in it, but the South Tower was an office building.
When the Plane crashed, it bunched all of the organic material against the wall; if the metal poured around that, some will get in.
someguy018 1 year ago
@8real Come to think of it, that may have been what held the metal back as it was heated up above 1800F; The bunched up debris may have formed a kind of "dam" that slowed the flow of the metal as it poured towards the window.
Listen, I would love to discuss this with you, but I'm very busy. I don't want this to interfere with my life.
Have a good one.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018 - Half a second?
watch?v=_0o__xzKHKQ
Nope. Not half a second.
Why was it glowing in the first place? Why didn't NIST do any testing? If I was able to, certainly they could.
You simply cannot make aluminum glow in daylight, without much higher temps than were reportedly present.
ViperXXXXXXX 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX In your video, the aluminum was glowing orange from a second to two seconds, tops, and that was only when a large amount of it spilled at one time.
Why was it glowing? When Aluminum reaches certain temperatures, it glows. There were kerosene fires in the WTC that constantly burned, heating the aluminum, at around 800C for almost an hour. If you ask me, the metal was much hotter than 1800F when we saw it in the video, not to mention that some of it may have been organic material.
someguy018 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX In your video, the aluminum was glowing orange from a second to two seconds, tops, and that was only when a large amount of it spilled at one time.
Why was it glowing? When Aluminum reaches certain temperatures, it glows. There were kerosene fires in the WTC that constantly burned, heating the aluminum, at around 800C for almost an hour. If you ask me, the metal was much hotter than 1800F when we saw it in the video, not to mention that some of it may have been organic material.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018 - It was more than a second, time it. It was also in daylight, and organic material does not cause molten aluminum to glow, this was tested, and proven false.
You're fooling nobody but yourself, buddy.
ViperXXXXXXX 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX I DID time it, and it lasted for around 2 seconds, which I said that it may have lasted at at points, in my previous comment.
I NEVER said that Organic material was what caused it to glow, you liar. You're putting words in my mouth. It was the fact that the Aluminum was heated at 1500-1800 degrees fahrenheit for an hour which caused it to glow.
I'm not trying to fool anyone here, just giving you the facts. Unlike you, I don't lie about what people say.
someguy018 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX I agree, NIST should have done testing before saying that the metal was glowing from Organic material. This statement was made very soon after 9/11, and as time passes, our knowledge of information grows, leading us to reform our opinions.
The fact is that Aluminum should be expected to glow after being heated in a kerosene fire for nearly an hour, and that some of what we saw may not have been aluminum at all. Steven Jones admitted that embers added to the glow of molten metal.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018 - The amount of time it was in the fire will not make metal hotter than the fire itself...
You really need to study this, before commenting to me. I have a manufacturing, welding, engineering, and psychology degree.
Which means I'm smart enough to know what I'm talking about, and smart enough to know that you're grasping to straws, and continuing to debate in fear of simply being wrong.
ViperXXXXXXX 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX Really?
In another video, 8real melted aluminum to above 1800 degrees fahrenheit, and the temperature was rising quickly.
A propane stove may be able to burn at 2000 degrees fahrenheit, depending on the surface.
I'm not grasping straws, I'm just showing you the facts; aluminum CAN glow, the Aluminum WAS heated at 1800 degrees fahrenheit for a while, and when we saw the aluminum, it only glowed for half a second nomally, and only longer if there was much of it.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018 "A propane stove may be able to burn at 2000 degrees fahrenheit"
Note how i said MAY, and DEPENDING ON THE SURFACE.
Also, in his video, he waited for a few seconds before pouring the aluminum.
someguy018 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX I will say the same thing to you as I said to 8real; i simply do not have time to be arguing about this. Even if I did, then I wouldn't waste it arguing with a liar such as yourself.
If you have seen videos of Aluminum in a refinery, you can see that it CAN glow orange: /watch?v=DiQOMJvQTpg
Clearest at 2:42.
Also, unlike 8real, who was mostly respectful and kind, you are acting like a stupid little kid who insults others for disagreeing with you for logical reasons.
someguy018 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX The fact is, that there are so many unknowns and other variables in place that we cannot know WHY the aluminum burned the way it did, necessarily, but we can know that it did.
If it is molten steel, then why is it only coming from the corner of the building that the Fuselage of the 767 is resting at?
Also, if it was molten steel, then why would they melt the steel with nitrate in the first place, when they did not have to to cause the towers to collapse?
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
*You KNOW it's aluminum....That is interesting! Because, even NIST doesn't "know" what it is. They speculated on it, but that's all! No testing!
*Did it ever occur to you that maybe the fuselage may have knocked something down or dislodged something?
*It would be molten iron...Not steel. You are starting to ask irrelevant questions. The topic I deal with is, what does aluminum look like at 1800F. Now, stop spamming my video. If you have something constructive to add, fine.
8real 1 year ago
@someguy018
"The fact is, that there are so many unknowns and other variables in place that we cannot know WHY the aluminum burned the way it did, necessarily, but we can know that it did."
"but we can know that it did."
How do "we" know that exactly? You haven't offered anything to support that statement whatsoever.
clipper0udo2 11 months ago
@ViperXXXXXXX Besides, you're the one who started commenting to ME, not the other way around.
If you cannot grasp facts, such as that Aluminum CAN glow like the metal from the towers did, that it CAN do so in a bright environment (such as in the video I gave you), that It was ONLY coming from a place with aluminum, that it would make sense for it to last for the time that it did (from half a second to two seconds, and even then only with large amounts) then you are a shame to your degree.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
Stop trying to act like anybody has said "Aluminum can not glow"...Because that is not true!
It's like me saying "Hey, my sky is black" And you are like "No, it's blue!".. Then I respond "Well, it's 12am here, so it's black" and - pay attention now - you say "STOP TRYING TO SAY IT'S NOT BLUE, YOU ARE A SHAME TO YOUR DEGREE"....
Did that make sense? I never once said the sky couldn't be blue! Aluminum CAN burn bright orange! Just not at 1800F flowing in daylight conditions!
8real 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX If you can't grasp obvious facts, like the fact that Aluminum CAN glow the way that it did in this video, that it CAN glow in a bright environment (such as in that video i gave you), that it was coming from a place with aluminum (the fuselage of the 767), that the fires were burning hot enough to heat it to a point where it WOULD glow like that, and that it makes sense for the glow to last as long as it did; a couple of seconds; then you are a shame to your degree.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
Do me a favor, go make your own video and debate it! It's not that freaking hard to see what aluminum looks like at 1800F. GO LOOK AT IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES. Not inside of a crucible, but poured out during the day. Until then, you are nothing more than a spam bot on my video. As it stands, you are making a fool out of yourself to anybody that has done actual research on this subject.
8real 1 year ago
@ViperXXXXXXX I have work to do, so i will not be able to respond to your lies anymore. Have fun, living in your fantasy world where logic does not exist.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018 - "Lies", huh. This is when I know I know someone is trolling.
Funny how you went from 1 second to 2 seconds, and the it's only 2 seconds becuase the metal falls out of view.
I'm sure you're working. Trolls only job is to live at home with their parents and make idiotic comments on youtube.
ViperXXXXXXX 1 year ago
What was the temperature of the molten aluminum you were using?
Yes, molten aluminum is silvery... below 600 degrees celsius.
The fires in the WTC burned at around 1600-1800 degrees Fahrenheit; or, around 900-1000 degrees celsius.
When molten aluminum reaches around 900 degrees celsius, it turns light-red orange.
Furthermore, burning organic material that got in with the aluminum contributed to the glow.
I suggest you redo the experiment, this time heating the aluminum to 900 C.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
Please, look at the rest of my videos. Specifically, this one
watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ&feature=related
Hope this helps. Also, please remember that 1800F is a stretch, considering the context of this debate. The molten metal would have HAD to flowed away from the heat source - in order to flow out the window -, lowering the temperature dramatically. Hope this helps.
8real 1 year ago
@8real I watched your video, and it was interesting.
However, the Aluminum from the 767 which crashed into the tower was melted by a fire at about 1500-1600 F (at one point reaching 1800), fueled by both kerosene and organic material, for about 50 minutes, as opposed to a propane stove, which you were likely using.
Also, seeing as there was a much larger quantity of the metal in the crash, it most likely didn't lose heat as quickly as yours did.
However, I'm no expert.
someguy018 1 year ago
@someguy018
The aluminum was silvery as it hung off the lip of the crucible. The crucible is clearly bright orange in the video and heated up to 1800F. That is because aluminum is highly reflective.
Not sure what you think could have been holding the aluminum in place, but if we have learned anything, it is that if something is liquid, it rolls where gravity takes it. Aluminum melts at 1200F, what holds it in place until 1800F, then releases it out the window? That is the question I am asking.
8real 1 year ago
@8real Yeah, but was the Fire from your stove 1800F, or was it just the aluminum?
The fire that melted the aluminum was 1800F, not the metal itself. The metal was probably much hotter for most of the time (seeing as how it was subjected to that temperature for several minutes) and cooled to around 1800F when it reached the window, cooling further during the fall.
The metal pouring out of the tower was filmed 50 minutes after the crash; if you ask me, the metal (continued)
someguy018 1 year ago
@8real (continued) was probably pouring out of the window for much longer, but the metal that wasn't pouring out was heated further by the fire, to above 900C, and then cooling to 900C once becoming visible.
However, as I've said before, I'm no expert; this is just my guess.
someguy018 1 year ago
@ChinkMasterP Thanks for agreeing with me.
ihateforigners 1 year ago
They meant the fires that had the furniture and such, not the Aluminum Metal itself!
ihateforigners 1 year ago
pot of shit does not equal giant building plus 10000 of variable plus airliner.
kungfuwookie 1 year ago
In fact i wonder if they wher purposely stupid, just because they knew they would get away with it LOL
ppedalen 1 year ago
Blablablablablablablabla, blablablablabla. Blablablablabla. What happens? NOTHING..Makes me kinda wanna join them instead and just bomb everything just because its fun when things say booom, and others ''not meself'' scream in pain. Makes me feel so ,,Powerfull..Soon whe are so many so next olympics will will make a poleshift because off the weightshift Muahahahah..Gotta get rid off the overpopulated masses..Boomchakelake boom..Doesnt matter anyways whe all just dust in the wind.
ppedalen 1 year ago
The law says check for eksplosives...But whe dont even have to, cause simple logic is enough! Several eksperts on the day said there had to have been eksplosives.SEVERAL MILITARY EKSPERTS! You debunker might win some on ya bull..But BULL is what it is and ya know it..And if not grow some brain..Most b a hollow felling...There are so many things ..Just the bullshi. lies on the DAY. Whe could never imagine thats why whe had a drill corncerning the exact same scenario. LOL they are STUPID to! you?
ppedalen 1 year ago
So its redicoulus..But All other building had been checked BECAUSE And invesigations DIDNT follow the LAW..But off course when you make the laws you dont have to follow them, you just make a law that says you dont have to..Like Bush and Berlusconi..Tornament b upon their souls,,LOL not needed they are patological sick anyways and proberly wouldnt understand AHAHAHA. To bad their dicease is like a virus spreading to other lamenecks to!
ppedalen 1 year ago
1) the explosive energy is a must
2) NO INVESTIGATION HAS EVER TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVES!!! thus u stand on no ground for denyin the use of explosive/accelerants
swu880 1 year ago
What a bad experiment. A larger amount of alluminum cools at the same rate as a smaller amount of alluminum. This would mean that the larger amount of alluminum would stay red hot longer than the smaller amount. a few tons does not cool as fast as a few ounces. An example of this is an ice cube vs a block of ice. They will not melt in the same amount of time, the larger one will take longer to warm and melt.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
sigh... i c u failed science before u even learned it. Since when has Quantity been related to color?? I suggest u look up wien's law & some chemistry. each one of ur statements is filled with utter ignorance-
swu880 1 year ago
Comment removed
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@swu880 Quantity relates to color because the hotter a metal gets the closer it is to being red hot. If it is red hot it has been heated to a certain temperature. This experiment you are watching suggests that several tons of alluminum cool at a faster rate than a few ounces. It cools at the same rate so naturally thealluminum would take longer to cool down and would then stay red hot for longer. That also isn't chemistry, that would be basic common sense physics.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
sigh... there is NO such variable as quantity fool! go pick up a chem book that is not written or associated with nist! 10 newt. of iron and 10000 newt of iron at the same temperature, radiate the same color- period! The difference is ENERGY- repeat after me- ENERGY.
Quantity in no way effects color- there is no relation between quantity & color- if there was, then wien's law never could be deduced
swu880 1 year ago
geez- u foolish 'clingers' can't even use decent logic & science - u keep fabricating bullshit reasons... like u tried to claim first that molten aluminum @ 1800F burns yellow/red. Then u falsely claim that it mixes w/ organic materials to burn yellow/red- each claim is more ridiculous than the last
swu880 1 year ago
all the while u fail to account for the ENERGY- u have yet to note what mechanism exactly caused such vast amounts of energy to be expended
swu880 1 year ago
1 newt of mercury at 2000F burns the same color as 10000000000newt of mercury at 2000F
DUH- the difference lies in ENERGY not in some bogus quantity
-There is NO relation between quantity & color. it is ENERGY & color- thats wien's law
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 A few tons of any substance always has more thermal energy if they are at the same temp than a smaller amount. Here's a little backyard experiment even you can do! Take a block of ice and an ice cube, time to see which one takes longer to melt.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
sigh... the color radiated of any blackbody object is dependant NOT on quantity but on energy! u seriously fail to grasp such a basic concept- u can NOT achieve an orange glow from aluminum @ merely 1800F! no matter how many tons of aluminum u hav, it will not glow orange&red at 1800F. The energy though varies depending on the temperature & the mass.
swu880 1 year ago
but there is NO relation between quantity & color. it is temperature/energy and color!!!!!
yes 1000newt of iron @ 2100F has more energy than 10newt of iron at same temp. But! the color of the iron remain exactly the same. moreover, not only does the 1000newt have more energy, it also REQUIRES MORE ENERGY TO PRODUCE!
u NEED greater amounts of energy to maintain the color(temp) for the more massive material. Where can all that energy come from? definitely NOT an office fire!
swu880 1 year ago
stop blindly clinging to some 'official bullshit' & look @ the basic facts- it aint aluminum! Even if it somehow miraculously was 'aluminum', according to wien's law, the radiating object must be like 1000F hotter than it is purported to be. Why? aluminum aint orange at 1800F- it starts turnin more reddish/yellow at about 2700 or so
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 If it's not aluminum then what is it?
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@swu880 Even your master Dr. Jones shows that at 1800F aluminum glows red. The more energy in something the longer it takes to cool down, that is what I'm saying.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
it definitely aint aluminum- that is for sure!
jones show that it is silvery not red. where are u lookin? Everyone who is human knows that aluminum is silvery, and at 1800F the metal is still silvery!
But moreover, the fires were INEFFICIENT w/ heavy smoke & soot! so the fires could NOT even approach anywhere near 1800F!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 If it's not aluminum then what is it.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
investigate fool! investigate! use logic, use supboena, arrest & detain suspects, interrogate, puruse data, investigate! that is what a REAL investigation will turn out-
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 You're not answering my question, you're saying it can't be aluminum then what is it?
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
not sure exactly- but it definitely is not aluminum- a real investigation will turn out all the precise facts! but the offical bullshit is really bullshit! none of it is logical or accountable. aluminum definitely is silvery not red/orange & no office fire could ever even reach temperature close to 1800F as u CLINGERS purport- especially when the fire is HEAVY with smoke & soot
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 NIST isn't going to be right about everything, just because they don't get everything right doesn't mean they are doing it for a coverup. It could be molten glass or other factors we don't know about. I can also tell you it is not iron or steel.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
sigh- yes & maybe martians & aliens decided to use their laser beams to hold the building & then use a neutron gun to blow through all the steel columns thus allowing for wtc7 to go into freefall for 2.5 seconds
we dont know. hey & maybe when the guy next door is shot tin the head- maybe he just had a bullet teleported straight into his head.
swu880 1 year ago
none of this stuff can truly b accounted for without the use of major external forces or explosive materials! o thats right- they never tested the site for explosives. why dont we go test it ourselves? o thats right- all the evidence was illegally shipped off & melted
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 If there were explosive used there would be clear evidence of it. No weakening cuts were found, no undetonated detcord, explosives in the central collumn would be prematurely detonated.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
not quite- did they ever check for actual explosives AND ACCELERANTS? NO! they said 'hey uh it couldnt be rdx cuz um yeah- so no explosvies'- that is NOT investigating!
geez- its evident by all the mass amounts of energy that external force is necessary! wtc7 freefall accel 2.5 sec, thermal hotspots of thousands degrees weeks&months after, this molten metal of some sort & the self destruction of all the buildings!
none of this can b explained by mere office fire.
swu880 1 year ago
explosive energy is a MUST- its a fundamental LAW- no way around it even if u have congress legislate around it! cant achieve freefall accel w/o it! thus they ought have tested for it but NEVER did!
why? well do u know the relation between white-house & nist? do u? nist is the white house puppet- literally! go look up the relation between nist & the white house & u will see how "OBJECTIVE, ACCOUNTABLE, and ACCURATE" these folks are
swu880 1 year ago
its precisely cuz its unlikely- yet the energy is essential- that we MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST check for such explosives & accelerants
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 RDX isn't used in commercial demo, it is used in manufactre of C4. C4, detcord (PETN) and dynamite are generally used and all of which would be prematurely detonated or destroyed (even RDX). The accelerant would the jet fuel. if you are referring to thermite then tell how it was ignited, it takes between 2000F and 2200F to ignite you said yourself that the fires couldn't have reached 1800 F. Also any remote device would be destroyed by the plane impact.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
sigh- they never checked for it- never never never- unless u check for it, u cant account for it! period
moreover the explosive energy is a MUST- u cant break this law no matter what excuse u try to give. remember- unlikely is not same as impossible-
It may be 'unlikely' (more like ur ignorant) that someone planted explosives, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve all those phenomenon especially freefall of wtc7 without use of explosive/accelerant!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
u crack me up- hahahah
jet fuel? really- wow do u ever think before u speak? most of jet fuel vaporized in that big black orange fireball! And the rest burned away within 10-15minutes. so what jet fuel u talkin about? And also- an open fuel random jet fuel fire- w/ heavy black smoke- hardly can burn hot at all. in fact a kerosene/gas stove is probably far hotter than the random open jet fuel fire.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Jet fuel is still an accellerant. You are the one who is ignorant in explosives, I'm trained in explosives and have extensive experience. I can say without a doubt no explosives were used, I didn't ever say it was likely, it is sure.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool lol- what jet fuel u talkin about? seriously each one of ur statement sound more ludicrous. EXPLOSIVE ENERGY IS A MUST- physics dictate it. no judge may overrule it.
watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 A plane crashed into the towers, did you not know that. Explosive energy is not a must, the planes would have dealt enough energy to take down the building because it hit in the right spot. Explosves couldn't have been used.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
sigh- i see u failed physics. watch the vids i & read the article i gave u.
obect in motion tend to stay in motion; object at rest tend to stay at rest; unless an external force is applied
After the plane 'hit' , the buildin remain standin for hours. Thus the energy had already dissipated & so we see the buildin continue to stay at rest. if there were NO other explosions, the buildin would likely continue to stand for days, weeks, months.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 I deny explosives because it is impossible. Explosives would not have worked. I know you will deny it but fires burning at 1800 F and a structure that has been hit by a large aircraft will eventually collapse. Clearly you did not ever get any training and have no experience with explosies.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool did u even look @ the paper & the video? it is impossible to achieve freefall acceleration w/o use of explosives. none of the phenomenon can be explained without external energy being applied!
There is NO fooling physics- in measurin velocity & acceleration & the forces on the buildin, it is evident that at least wtc7 required explosives. moreover the thermal phenomenon of hotspots @ ground zero can NOT be explained w/o external energy
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Show me where they demonstrated that explosive & accelerants were NOT used- show me the proof that they had tested all the debris & found no explosives/accelerants present- i am not talkin about 1 or 2 explosives, im talkin about ALL explosive/accelerants! if u can't show me it, we have a serious problem
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
go try to replicate the purported 'fire induced collapse' seen in wtc7, go see if u can achieve symmetric parallel freefall w/o usin any external accelerants & energy
swu880 1 year ago
Even getting fire to burn through a couple pieces of wood columns simultaneously to cause a parallel collapse is quite unlikely b/c fire is WILD & organic. now imagine steel hidden behind all the drywall & everything & the concrete & glass & tiles, etc. its impossible for the steel to b effected significantly by mere fires
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 I don't have report, this is from my own experience that explosives couldn't have been used. There was fire and the building was damaged by falling debri from the other buildings. To take down the twin towers one would need to know exactly where the plaabes would hit in order to make it look real, that is something you could not do. Go fill a building with explosives, fly a plane into it and see what happens.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
sigh- read the paper watch the video- then come back and answer these two questions:
1) what are the laws of physics
2) how much force was wtc7 exerting & how much of it was being 'resisted' by supports as it collapsed? notably during the freefall?
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 lol- its also quite funny u say 'there is fire & falling debris damage from the other buildings". well have u ever looked at the other building fool? wtc5,6 were all INFINITELY more damaged than the wtc7 was. And the fires were much greater. But guess what- it didn't collapse! it didn't go into no symmetric freefall!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 I've actually seen the other building, Last I was there they were still repairing the broken glass on them. WTC 7 was a different building, hence you can't compare it to others becaus it was a different design. WHy don't you go look up some of the explosives I've mentioned, I'm sure you can find some ok info on the internet, I'd be careful with wikipedia though.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@swu880
o And the last question is just as important-
3) what is the conservation of momentum/energy?
swu880 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
sigh... u see each one of ur 'retort' is only based on some bullshit 'unlikelihood' of the event. You use ill reason behind ur statements. firstly explosives are DIVERSE! there are countless kinds & each havin different effect. They can be melded, changed, modified, adjusted, etc
Second, flash point!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
each material has a different ignition point. And materials may be further modified to change ignition points & such depending on their mixtures etc. Can u do that w/ a random wild organic fire? NO
See c4 plastic explosive dont necessarily explode when put in fire. they can be tossed, stomped & thrown in a fire place. But they wont explode unless certain charge is placed on it
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
And c4 is a really old & kinda outdated explosive- been around since vietnam era- dont u think? c4 is only 1 kind of explosive- dont u think people could find super advanced ways of hyping various explosives?
(note- im not sayin c4 is not effective. but it is very old & there are a lot cooler stuff to use that go boom)
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 It is not based off unlikelyhood. You are right, there are many different kinds of explosives but there are certain properties that they will have. They all react to pressure (or rather shock), heat, or both. because of these properties that any explosive will have (atleast one of ) it would make it impossible to fly a plane into the structure and start fires without either premature detonation or destruction of explosive device.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
1) the explosive energy is a must
2) NO INVESTIGATION HAS EVER TESTED FOR EXPLOSIVES!!! thus u stand on no ground for denyin the use of explosive/accelerants
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 They haven't tested for explosives because anyone who knows anything about demolition knows how rediculous the claim is.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
Thats a foolish claim- u havent tested for it yet u claim there is none. That's like closing your eyes & blind folding yourself & saying there is no light in the room. Unless u actually LOOK, u cant find a damn thing! seriously- all my points still stand- explosive energy is a must. if u saw the video it becomes evident
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
stop being in denial & look @ the facts!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 No it's not, The planes and heat would have detonated or destroyed all explosives in the area around it. It's not possible. Someone liek you who has not a clue what you are talking about wouldn't understand.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
sigh... did u even watch the video? david chandler make it very clear- freefall can't occur w/o some instantaneous external force being precisely applied to a building!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Did you read my comments, if that's true, it wasn't explosives.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
u never checked for it- so stop denying it! hey if u want to stay in a dark room w/ ur eyes closed, go ahead, but don't say that there is no such thing as light when u urself refuse to look for it!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 nist neglected the national fire investigation manual of 2001. They totally ignored all the protocals & procedures that a fire investigation should incur- never checked for accelerants & explosives. So no fucking duh they wont 'see any' since they never checked!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 pitiful- u dont even know physic & u say all this crap about fire being the culprit. lol watch the vid & educate urself
go look @ nist pee itself in front of a public audience
/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 And you don't know anything about explosives and you say that is the culprit. I'm going with over 100,000 experts who agree with me and you are going with about 1000.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
lol so? u sayin ALL the eyewitnesses were lying? u sayin that the physics of the collapse is lying? u sayin that a GOVT PAID AGENCY of the white house is telling the truth? wow- u never even watched a single vid- go watch ALL ALL ALL of them then come back & tell me what each video was about, what was said by the presenters & the materials not ur opinions
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Look for? There is no evidence of explosives at ground zero, no explosives, no detcord, no weakening cuts in the steel.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
really? wow ur ignorance is phenomenal! there have been explosions heard throughout the day- eyewitness reports & everything. news reporters reported hearin explosions! u deny all that? like nist! liar, ignorant fools & blind sheep!
watch these:
/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q
/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ
/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM&feature=related
so i guess all those witnesses were lying
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 physics does NOT lie
nist lies, sheeple lie, but not physics. And if u watched all the vids i pointed u to, the truth about govt flat out lying becomes evident
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
btw u still have not answered my 3 questions!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 I don't really care about your three questions because I've cme to beleive everything you claim ahs come from youtube. Just because people heard "explosions" does not mean the towers were taken down by explosives. There was no physical evidence of explosives found in the debri.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
lol u dont even know basic physics laws. How the hell can u make any damn statement about there being no explosives when u dont even know the motion of the building?
lol u dont even know what forces were present that day- u have never measured them & u still continue to blabber away? lol
they never checked period
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 if u watched all the vids, u would see just how embarressing nist is to the scientific community
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 I have watched so many videos that I am tired of watching them. Have you measured them? When did you get your degree in civil engineering? Or demolition? Or physics? I not saying the witnesses were lying I'm saying they may not know what they heard.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
yes i measured it in my private files somewhere- but im hardly gonna post it for some moron who doesnt even know how to add or understand physic laws
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Haha I'm sure you did.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
sadly u are like a holocaust denier. u close ur eyes, turn off the light, say its impossible & there is no light in the room. Without even lookin at the energy transfer, u claim there is no explosive or external energy present on 9/11
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
Your like an idiot who got shot by a 9mm w/ silencer. Then closing your eyes, u say that u were not shot but stabbed by a knife. And if u were shot, u would have heard it & saw a huge flash. lol
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
that is how absurd ur lack of logic is
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 My lack of knowledge? Go do some research on explosives and then study them for ten years and then tell me I have a lack of knowledge of explosives. What accelerant are you refering to? Thermite? What?
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool u use poor logic to dismiss cause of explosives
energy exerted by the wtc7 in freefall dictates that there must have been some CONTINUOUS INSTANTANEOUS PRECISE external mechanism that removed all the supports simultaneously & precisely to cause freefall. Without checkin, u say that theres no explosives. u never checked! how the hell can u deny it? especially when both the physics dictate it & the fire investigation manual stipulate it?
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
u check for ANY & ALL ACCELERANTS AND EXPLOSIVES- IF U MISS A SINGLE ONE, U FAILED UR INVESTIGATION! dude go learn how to use good logic- not clingers bullshit!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Of course you know more than I do about explosives right? You're youtube degree is really impressive. You do jot have to investigate for all explosives because it is impossible to use them if a plane crashes into the building. You are the only one who is willingly ignorant. Come back with something good or disprove what I have to say abotu explosives. I got my knowledge about controlled demo from experience you got yours from someone who doesn't have experience in controlled demo.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
physics dictate it- fire investigation manual stipulate it
so why the hell didnt they test for it? TEST FOR EVERY FUCKING KIND OF EXPLOSIVE & ACCELERANT!!! especially exotic kinds!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Exotic kinds? Do you even know what you are talking about? NIST doesn't test for it because it is rediculous. As I explained before I can't watch the videos because I have no sound on my computer (I can wtach them I just can't hear anything). It is not worth the time and money to search for something that is already impossible. RDX is not BTW "exotic", it is used in making C4 and other plastiqe explosive. The properties of the explosives tell the whole story. It wouldn't work.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool go watch the fuckin vids already before you come back- geez ur ignorance is phenomenal- explosions have been heard. yet the nist NEVER tested for them
chandler showed that explosive energy is a requisite- yet baboons like u keep clinging to som false notion that random fires were able to be focused & controlled
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 If I had access to samples of the WTC then I would test, but I don't, so I don't think I can very well test can I?
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@swu880 What do you even mean when you refer to "exotic" explosives? What are you refering to?
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
also note: i didn't say u lack knowledge, i said u lack logic LOGIC LOGIC! But then again, u do seriously lack any decent foundation in physics. go back to high school little kid
swu880 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool see by nist's erroneous claims, somehow 1/t = 1/(t^2) And somehow gravity went on a hiatus for a couple hours & the fire was able to be controlled into causing precise damage & burn continuously in 1 place for hours on end- although fires never really stay in 1 place for more than about 20-30 minutes
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 And thermite only burns for a few seconds. Buildings collapse the way we see the WTC go down. That is what happens to buildings.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
lol u can hear the explosions urself- if u watched the vids, its evident. are u even human? lol u lack any brain capacity to just click a link & watch it & analyze
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 Of course there is external energy, a plane crashed into the towers and fire burned fr hours. Actually my computer got a virus and I don't have any sound on it so at the moment I can't watch most of your videos. There is no physical evidence of explosives, to weakening cuts, no left over explosives, no det cord traces found in the rubble and evidence of pemature detonation on the structure.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
THEY NEVER CHECKED FOR ACCELERANT PRESENCE! what about that don't u get?
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
'There is NO greater sin than willful ignorance. Denial and ignorance is the culprit of tyranny'
swu880 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
go watch the vid & read the paper
swu880 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
I am no expert so this is just a suggestion. Could bombs be planted every 4, 5 or even 10 floors? Is it hard to believe that some other sort of demolition took place?
8real 1 year ago
@8real personally, I think the whole thermite is totally bullshit. Thermite is a non-explosive material that burns slower than gasoline fumes. Thermite cannot take down a building without using excessive amounts of it. It would not take that much explosive to actually take down the building, I mean it would be alot but to actually take it down it wouldn't need it on every floor. The problem I have is not with concealing the explosive but just the fact that it would be too unreliable.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
the explosives would be prematurely detonated or destroyed. To destroy concrete often they use dynamite, it is highly reactive to shock and heat and would be prematurely detonated either by the plane impact or by the fires. For shaped charges often c4 is used, although the shock or heat alone would not detonate it the heat would destroy it or ignite the blasting cap. The Gov't wouldn't plan something like this, it's too complicated they would fly planes with explosives in them into the WTC.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@8real Clarks is right, it wasn't a bomb. The impact pulled the fire insulation off the steel structurals, which were weakened by the fire because of it. Other floors still had their fireproofing, and so did not get weakened. When the weakened floors collapsed, the weight of the floors above came crashing down on the floors below. Then it's a question of inertia and gravity against the strength of those floors, and the floors didn't stand a chance - hence the progressive collapse.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
Why is it so hard to believe? And, not to mention all the first hand accounts of people describing bombs and explosions BEFORE, DURING and AFTER the attacks....Whether it was a bomb, thermite or whatever....Something had to create pools of molten metal....You say jet fuel and fire? If not, then please explain! There was a FEMA report that showed a steel column literally melted with holes in it! Please, explain! Google: APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination.
8real 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
I find it pretty funny when people KNOW for a fact a plane filled with fuel is enough to bring down skyscrapers....When we bring up building 7 and they simply say, DEBRIS, not a plane, but DEBRIS was enough to bring down WTC 7. Again, hours after it had been struck. C'MON, man! 2 totally different styles in the way they fell as well. WTC 7 was hit from debris and it is a bottom down collapse. And the towers where obviously top down! Why? Did WTC 7 get hit in some magical way?
8real 1 year ago
@8real WTC 7 was a fire that burned for hours, started because two massive burning buildings had just fallen next to it, and they didn't have the resources or the ability to fight it. You can burn any building for hours and it will eventually collapse. In this case, the lowest floors failed and the top of the building went into a 7 floor free fall and then hit the lowest portions of itself, so it fell mostly onto its own footprint.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@Lessinath No building actually have burned all combustable materials and still stood.Not ONE single case a steelframe fell...And where is the energy. Highest floors where less solid. WTC's got more solid the lower you went. So 20 storys above could under maximum condition smash 20 floors below..The collaps would have haulted..The only way your science makes it work..Have the scoundrels to do all the work. Like having a criminal evaluating own crime and making the sentence! CRAAAB!
TheoriginalGrumphy 1 year ago
@TheoriginalGrumphy You've made yourself look like a fool - you obviously know nothing about structural engineering. Steel frames of buildings DO get damaged in intense fires, always. No exceptions. You also do not understand gravity, or kinetic energy. As the building falls, it gains immense kinetic energy as well as still being pulled on by gravity. By looking at it as a the top of the building falling on the whole building, you are doing it wrong, it fails floor by floor.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@TheoriginalGrumphy Furthermore, the incidents you name did not occur in bush's presidency, or bush just continued them, officially or not. A million is not a large army for a country this size. And to restate it, because it's been said but is just going over your head: No steel that has just had its fireproofing removed can withstand an intense fire and still bear that heavy of a load. Intense fire changes the chemistry of the steel itself. It is physically impossible.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@TheoriginalGrumphy And finally, if the government really could cover things up as well as you claim they could - which they can't, not even close - something always leaks, for example, look at the tens of thousands of documents on wikileaks, then don't you think they would have just shot the buildings with missiles from offshore, which would have brought them down near instantly, and claimed them as terrorist missiles? No, you don't agree? Well, shows how you fail logic completely and forever.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@TheoriginalGrumphy To top it all off, you still haven't explained away the phone calls made from the hijacked airlines describing the terrorists, why the terrorists claimed responsibility for something they didn't do, why no other countries noticed something was funny about all of this, and why, above all else, you so strongly believe that a straight down collapse of a building is impossible when it has been clearly seen before even outside of these towers, even before these towers were built.
Lessinath 1 year ago
@Lessinath Furthermore Nigeraqua, San Salvador, Panama, Quatemala,irst Iran intervention. Cia smugling drugs into USA, allowing medical experiments on own population. Tortue Wiretappings Indefinat detention without trial etc etc..One 1.000.000 privately employd securety forces after 911..Looks alot like STAZI! 911 was the very least a standdown opperation wich amounts to the same.Bush in office with FRAUD. You should wtach out for holes and vehicles, sleepwalking is dangerous!
TheoriginalGrumphy 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
it sound like uve only played w/ firecrackers - explosives are definitely moldable- they can be adjusted, changed, played around w/. And they can be very precise & cause instantaneous damage. Fire = slow, gradual, random & organic. it would be foolish to think fire could caus instantaneous precise damage as nist would hav us believe
if it did, then may as well throw out all the demolition companies & just light a couple matches & watch a steel frame buildin come straight down!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 if u deny explosives & cling to some bullshit fire, u deny PHYSICS! And no longer hold any credibility-
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
911review(doT) org(slash)WTC(slash)WTC_JET_FUEL_9_11(dot)HTML
swu880 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
No, you are wrong. We never said that the fires couldn't have reached. Understand, if you believe the official story, you must admit that the fires where a combination of fuel and office furniture. NIST reproduced an exact replica of a WTC floor and dumped "jet fuel" in it and they found, that the fuel rapidly burned off in minutes. It is universally accepted that 1800F is the hottest the fires could have been if the official story where true. And the same test confirmed this!
8real 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
You say "It could be molten glass or other factors we don't know about. I can also tell you it is not iron or steel."
How about you go heat glass to 1800F and see what happens? Considering most types of glass don't melt until 2500F, it is almost pointless to suggest it is glass. It was done here to prove that molten glass and aluminum will not mix.
Then you state that is not steel or iron...How did you come to that conclusion? Please, enlighten me!
8real 1 year ago
Its like having someone stabbed to death & then a bunch of officials in fancy suits say the guy was shot to death. Obviously the guy was stabbed to death & those who believe otherwise are ignorant&naive. Then you have idiots askin, 'well if he wasn't shot to death, then who killed him?' That is how ridiculous the clinger logic is
We don't know exactly what it is- but definitely it is not as purported!
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
if this was a truly free & open society living under the constitution, that fact alone should be enough to stir up a REAL investigation that is objective & accountable to the people.
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
the claims made by nist & clingers get more ridiculous each take. aluminum dont mix w/ organics, it is not purple, orange,red,or green at 1800F! And that definitely is not paint fallin out of the buildin. can only be some kind of molten metal!
Understanding that much allows us to corroborate it w/ the fact about numerous hot spots @ ground zero WEEKS & MONTHS after 9/11. it is impossible to account for any of these events by naively denying the presence of external forces
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880 The more you have the longer it stays hot, heat ENERGY is what makes it red.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool Or thermal energy I suppose
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
@clarkscoolskool
Does a large block of ice have the same visual characteristics as a small block of ice? The point of this video is very simple. will "debris" uniformly mix with aluminum to give it a "glowing orange" appearance as NIST suggested without ANY experiment! NIST already knows what aluminum looks like at 1800F...Hence the reason they suggested it was mixed with debris.
8real 1 year ago
@8real specically7 I was referring to an experiment that Jones did where he heated molyen alluminum to red hot and poured it and showed how quickly it changed color.
clarkscoolskool 1 year ago
Good and important video! There are still tons of idiots who just can't get the fact, there was molten iron pouring from the WTC, because of Thermate.
didimooo555 1 year ago
Nice! Silver and shiny as expected.
stratocaster539 1 year ago
NIST was PWNED
Lietuvispartizan 1 year ago
if the aluminum gets hot enough it will change color
bacsac4 2 years ago
Your statement does not take into consideration the context: At what temperature does this occur? and what heat source could have produced this temperature? In no way does the orange aluminum hypothesis match the claims NIST made. Please try to be careful not to make these mistakes. Propagandists rely upon people not being careful in their thinking.
SciMethod 2 years ago