WTC Collapses

No, you are still missing the point.

Camera's are designed to take photons in to create a picture, if the photon output is too high it can cause a change in regards to how a picture develops. Namely if the central piece is a bright light, then the surroundings will appear dark.

There is something else that I've not mentioned to, it involves Aluminium filings and a candle. I don't suggest doing this experiment in an enclosed environment, however if you blow the filings across the candle, the cloud of aluminium will erupted into a flash. (It's the basis of Flash Powder used in Fireworks)

As you should know with fireworks, when they are shot into the sky the bright flash can linger and that's really due to fuel verses flash powder consistency, if there isn't enough powder then it will burn out, if the powders thick enough it can glow for a while before dying out.

I only mention this because Molten aluminium dripping hundreds of feet, isn't going to suddenly cool. It will glow as the velocity of the hot metal is actually fuelled by oxygen on it's decent.

You guys that don't understand Metallurgy really should check out a Foundry or two. Just if you go for a visit, don't start bombarding them with "WTC conspiracies" otherwise you'll miss what you can take in about what actually occurs with metals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so you are saying the color in your picture is not the true color? I'm not an expert in cameras but i know there is a big difference between digital and analogue cameras, digital cameras depict natutral colors automatically. your picture was taken with a digital camera.

however, given what you say, why is the background not dark in this picture, which incidently is molten iron, so very much hotter than what was seen at the wtc:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not exactly. the evidence i accept is FIRST HAND, meaning it came directly from ground zero with an evidence trail. evidence trail in this case means that you can positively identify everyone that had contact with it.
i WILL NOT accept red/ grey chips taken from an apartment or supposed evidence that was submitted by anonymous sources.

sorry about that.
but your explanation still doesn't answer why the government placed this stuff only in one corner or why they placed it where it could easily be found.
i have no idea what this stuff is but i would guess it was some sort of pyrotechnics someone had in their office.

huh? what are you saying here? that the plane itself was responsible for the showers of sparks? if so then how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Is that a promise?

 

As a spineless bottom-feeder, thinking seriously has not been your forte. Your so-called evidence to support your assertions is laughable to the point of insulting.

 

I rest my case

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fortunately there are more mature official story believers here who can actually discuss the arguments presented for an inside job instead of all this name calling.

 

you STILL haven't answered my question as to where the debris came from or who did the analysis of it.

edit:
post in question:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171992&postcount=1927

 

You're more deluded than I thought if you actually believe the discussions here warrant your pathetic assertions credible.

 

not even if the evidence is true?

it was taken from other places too - scooped off the railings on the bridge before the collapse of wtc7.

i don't know what evidence is submitted by an anonymous source that you refer to, but obviously any such evidence would be suspect, since anonymous people cannot swear an oath to a court of law punishable by charges of perjury in the event of lying.

I can't imagine why someone would innocently bring pyrotechnics into a skyscraper which has strict building codes, i would imagine some building regulation would be breached, sounds like a stupidly dangerous thing to do.

any concealed incendary material concealed in the core that was concealed, or concealed in other places in the building that was intended to be concealed in a concealed fashion, may have been dislodged from its place of concealment into its eventual place of non-concealment, unintentionally by the de-concealing plane impact.

 

LOL!! dude..I hope your not talking about me! phhhhff! mature?

From my own profile:

oh yeah..that's mature alright. Scott, I generally only insult you when I'm drunk, and my tongue is loosed. I generally keep it above the belt, because I'm a joker and like to keep things light, and my mama raised a gentlemen. (of sorts)


There have been many times where I wanted to call you names, because I was just astounded by what you are capable of believing. I don't think you understand why people call you names. I know these guys that are hurling insults at you...it's not that they are trying to be mean, or are just being assholes. It's just after so many completely frustrating conversations with so many different woo woos, they don't even bother.


Here's an example of why some people get mad and hurl insults at you..this is how it sounds to us:

TS: 2+2=5

Sciforums member: Umm...TS..I think you got it a little wrong there..2+2=4.

TS: Not according to Dr. John Smith of the Wrong Math Foundation for Truth. Read this link, he tells all about how 2+2=5.

SFM: Unfortunately, Dr. Smith is wrong. Every 2nd grade math teacher could tell you this. 2+2=4

TS: Dr. Smith has several published, peer reviewed papers on the Wrong Math Journal for online peer reviewed papers on Wrong math. He is an expert in wrong math.

SFM: It really doesn't matter about his credentials...2+2 still equals 4..he's wrong. Try googling "2+2" and see what answer it gives.

TS: The insiders control the content of google, so it's answer cannot be trusted. I trust Dr. Smith and he says 2+2=5.

SFM: Ok..TS...Watch my hands...2 (holds up two fingers on one hand) plus 2 (holds up 2 fingers on the other hand) equals what? count them...1..2..3..4. Four!

TS: Dr. Smith also has a theory on 3+3=9. You should read this link, he talks all about it.

SFM: We weren't talking about 3+3=9....we were talking about 2+2=4 not 5. You avoided my question and changed the subject!

TS: Dr. Smith says 2+2=5

SFM: (steam blows from ears) AHHHHH!! You're an IDIOT!! Any damn fool knows 2+2=4. I've even showed you with my own two hands that 2+2=4...but you won't accept it!! (continue with insults from here on out)


Scott...this is what is like for some of us. This is how some see your arguments, and why they respond with insults.

 

Uno,

I tried to pm you this, but you don't accept pm's.

Please go to Scott's formal debate proposal thread and offically accept the challenge. James has approved the go ahead of the debate...and Scott really wants this one bad.

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mac

 

Lol Mac

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

was those chips taken from ground zero?
if so then who submitted them?

hot damn he's coming into heat!
NOW you understand the worthlessness of anonymous sources.

probably for some such reason as some kind of "ticker tape" parade?
on the other hand i can't see why the government (or whoever) would place an "incendiary device" where it could be easily found, nor can i understand why it would be placed in one corner, and why that particular corner.

okay. so this stuff just "happened" to be where it was.
just because.
great explanation there headspin.

these "showers of sparks" have me intrigued because i can't find any original footage with those sparks in it.
edit:
ah yes, here is one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA

 

are you going to answer my question about the origins and analysis of the debris or not scott?

 

Perhaps I should have put it differently

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. You are far more -kind- then some of the official story suppoters. Honestly, I'd rather discuss these topics with kids then some of the more profane people here.

And yet you've generally shown restraint. Something they just aren't very capable of doing.

If they didn't even bother, I wouldn't have a problem with them. The problem is that they -do- bother. They bother to be name callers and not much else. I guess it's time to make a list of people of the people who I like responding to:
1- swivel (we've rarely talked but I don't think he's insulted me once; perhaps it's because we rarely talk

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
2- you (I think you've probably insulted me, but in a nice way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
3- Stryder: I get -super- annoyed when he merges and/or closes threads, but what's a guy to do? Atleast he keeps things above the belt).
4- James (was thinking of admins, he's toyfully insulted me but the royal dog is generally ok

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
5- shaman_- I've even reported this guy twice or so. -However-, I think that he has hands down provided more material for me to debate then perhaps the rest of the posters here combined

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.
6- leopold99- he's alright, although I was severely miffed when he temporarily put me on ignore just because I responded to some of his posts in a different thread or 2. It's not like I -merged- any of this thread, let alone closed one (hint hint

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
I'm sure I've missed some but that's all I could think of right now.

I contend that that analogy is simply bad (though it did make me laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). If anything, I would contend that it applies far more to official story posters (hint hint

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Actually, google is a profound friend- don't know what I'd do without it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Anyway, even when official story believers are ardently proclaiming that 2+2=5 again and again, I simply don't start using insults. If I get burned out, I take a break; depending on how burned out I am, the break can be short or long. When I come back, I feel refreshed and able to continue in my usual civil way. About the only thing that would get me to insult is if I thought my physical well being was in danger. Otherwise, it's Mr civil to the end ;-).

 

Here are the 3 references that can be found at the bottom of the above linked article (I actually quoted the 3rd one but didn't include the link last time, but have done so now).
1. Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07
2. Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating materials, USGS.gov, 2001
3. Patent 6766744: Description, dodtechmatch.com

The analysis was done by by Steven Jones and the U.S. Geological Survey; this is why the first link is a paper by Steven Jones and the second link is to the U.S. Geological survey's material. The third link is the patent to thermate, so that you can see what it's composed of.

I think it's time that I quote the beginning of the 9/11 Research article:
Aluminothermic Residues

Form and Composition of Dust Particles Indicates Aluminothermics iron-rich microspheres

A micrograph published in a USGS report shows iron-rich spheres in the dust produced during the WTC's destruction.

Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.

 

My analogy was intended to be ridiculous. Just for humor's sake..you know me. As ridiculous as 2+2=5 is...to me, this is just as ridiculous as your assertion that mini-nukes could have been used to bring down the towers. I'm just saying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No one's going to let me live down the mini nukes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Steven Jones wrote an article discrediting the mini nukes theory over in the Journal for 9/11 studies:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”

I still haven't read it but if I once again begin believing that mini nukes might have played a part rest assured that I'll read it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Update- I had a peak at Steven Jones' article against the mini nukes theory- he really lays into the alleged evidence, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

thanks for the info.

really?
the USGS article you linked to says this about it:

any ideas why steve jones says it's thermate?

 

It's only about a page long- rest assured that I won't send you to read a 180 page document as shaman_ once did

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Again, from 9/11 Research:
Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers