Observing the truth is the only way to wake people up, let's build a

better mouse trap.

So we need to go backwards, fact first context after....

Color Approximate Temperature
°F, °C, K
Faint Red, 930, 500, 770
Blood Red, 1075, 580, 855
Dark Cherry, 1175, 635, 910
Medium Cherry, 1275, 690, 965
Cherry, 1375, 745, 1020
Bright Cherry, 1450, 790, 1060
Salmon, 1550, 845, 1115
Dark Orange, 1630, 890, 1160
Orange, 1725, 940, 1215
Lemon, 1830, 1000, 1270
Light Yellow, 1975, 1080, 1355
White, 2200, 1205, 1480
http://www.processassociates.com/process/heat/metcolor.htm



Using your own observation skills and the chart provided describe the color in the photo that you believe to be the hottest?

the temp could be as high as 1800 F. (Assuming the image is untouched; it comes from a less than credible source, but Ill go on the assumption it's real)

Now what? Do I win a prize?

When there isn't any....

Let’s just play reading between the lines.

Assuming the image is untouched
it comes from a less than credible source
but Ill go on the assumption it's real

Every one of these pearls of miss-logic is crafted to abuse the credibility of the evidence and nothing more.

That would be a number two DISCREDIT.

From that tired old BULLSHIT we have to watch on TV and read in the corporate news; Deny, Discredit, Distract. Even a moron can debunk using these three gems to cleans reality of context and provide for un-reasonable doubt.

I don't mind differences of opinion, but I don't understand people who go on a forum on a daily basis for the sole purpose of trying to shame people out of their thinking or discredit their posts so that others subconsciously dismiss it. I've done searches and these same posters do nothing else on DU, but this.

I'll suggest it's the kind of activity that someone might engage in if he or
she was not entirely confident of his or her hold on reality: seeking out
people whose ideas one could characterize as "crazy" and convincing oneself
that one's own powers of rationality were superior.

I have been very upfront with my views about 9/11 CT theories. You on the other hand are trying to build a better mouse trap to fool people into thinking the molten metal is an impossibility.

That's disingenuous!

trying... to fool people into thinking the molten metal is an impossibility.

Where do you get that idea?

Your motivations do seem questionable. It's as if you spent all your free
hours hanging around a country club trying to convince people that golf was
a waste of time, all the time claiming that you find their laughable interest
in such a silly game fascinating.

Libertypirate has stated he/she believes this is an impossibility. If I'm wrong please show me where.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=63126&mesg_id=63508

Posted by Libertypirate Thu Dec-15-05 12:08 AM


There is nothing here to debate 1 Airplane + 1 Building does not cause the temperatures found at the world trade center site. I would like to emphasize the PERIOD at the end of the last sentence.

Seems clear to me.

That says jet fuel can't cause molten metal.

You are illogically inferring that Pirate's statement that jet fuel can not
cause yellow-hot metal means Pirate says yellow-hot metal is impossible.

Jet fuel lasted 10 min per the NIST, and it wouldn't ever reach 1800F.

You still have more then 1000 hours of burn time, it's going to take more then that to cause these temperatures.

The fires underground at the WTC were no different. Some reports say they lasted up to eight weeks and may have even been hotter than 1800 F if there was melted steel.

The facts of the matter are that there were fires, they were underground, they lasted many weeks, and got quite hot (apparently at least 1800 F); exactly how hot is not known.

Do you think the facts are different than these? And why do you think this is an impossibility?

and have made a mental note to discount anything these posters have to say.

I told you I'll go along with the assumption the picture is real, so why get your skirt in a twist about the possibility the image has been altered. BTW, the possibility that it's faked or taken out of context IS reality. Anyone taking an image at face value from a website hosted by someone that allows their credentials to be misrepresented and thinks steel was vaporized in space as it fell is a moron.

So back to square one? Do I win a prize?

You keep assuming you can fit the truth in a box with your out of your pants analysis. As for credibility please, you an anonymous jerk who has attempted to debunk every fact you read with assumptive crap that leads no where. Please stop being an ass, my skirt as you said doesn't get wrinkled, and if I am proven wrong then I will retract what is an observable fact, reality, existence. Something the weakness of your assumptions cannot defame is an individuals own observation.

Do you know what the problem is with people who think they are smarter then the rest? They never realize that there is always someone smarter. I don’t have to have all the answers to acknowledge this one.

I have observed the color in the image would indicate a temperature up to 1800 deg F.

Now what?

This would be the next formal question.

I assume you question how the combination of high temperature and heat existed. Temperature and heat are two different quantities.

I can't provide an answer with precision, because there is no scientific or empirically found methods to provide an answer for me (or anyone I think). The closest thing we have to compare the fires at the WTC are underground fires found in nature in many parts of the world.

Based on this we know underground fires can get very close (or above in some cases) to the melting point of steel. We know there was abundant combustible materials available for the fires. We do not know the extent of materials available or what combinations of materials may have occurred. Some materials when combined make for very hot fires. We know in the basements of the WTC there may have be many sources for non office combustibles, like O2, NG, acetylene, O2, diesel fuels, oils, greases. We also know regular office fires can reach over a 1000 C and higher. We know the adiabatic flame temperatures of most of these combustibles are fairly close to each other (well past the melting point of steel). We know the conditions in an underground fire are favorable for getting closer to an adiabatic flame temp; low heat transfer, low dissociation, near stoichiometric conditions. We know that pressure and time play a role ( a minor one) in the melting point of materials.

So adding this all up tells me finding melted steel, while unusual, is hardly impossible.

I'm sure this response will not be, in any way shape or form, acceptable. So do you have an alternative explanation?

scruples, and in sentence two you acknowledge that this concern is real.

I'd suggest you need to work on your communication skills. I hope you are
not inflicting such inconsistent nonsense on any vulnerable children.

unmanly epistemological scruples in a sentence is the one that needs work on communication skills.

"Unmanly" was a fair characterization of your "twisted skirts" metaphor, if
you don't know what epistemology is you've got no business criticizing Dr. Griffin,
and two contiguous sentences that contradict each other are indicative of poor
communications skills.

to create a contradiction where none exists.

It is very simple. I will base my observation assuming the image is real and not altered in some way.

The fact the I think it is possible the image has been altered is not material to the discussion as I stated right up front I am assuming it is real. I was only pointing out I believe the web site the image is from is less than credible. That does not mean it is altered, only that it might be.

I hope Libertypirate is at least paying you to be his lawyer. BTW, it's multiple not multiply Mr. Communication.

It's a multiple self-contradicting message?

Yeah, sure, whatever you say Mr. LARED.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Maybe you heard about his paper?

DRAFT 3.1

New observations happen all the time, but most are not as simple as this one.

There is nothing that distinguishes him from any other articulate 9/11 CT'er.

Nothing except his supremely rational and very-well-disciplined mind, which
enables him to separate wheat from chaff, identify moot points, and avoid
wasting time on self-destructing arguments.

discussing evidence of Jesus's presence in North America? Rational my ass!

I suppose in your universe the sky is blue, and any observations that might
contradict that "truth" are rejected as irrational.

that they have to be questioned. Be honest, in any other situation such as his advocating intelligent design for example, the universal reaction on this board would be to condemn him as a right wing nut. The fact that he is the best you have is simply indicative of how the scientific and engineering communities reject your theories.

Read the paper.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

All he does is examine Central American art to check for deity-like figures
with hand wounds. He finds them.

What's irrational about that?

Advocating intelligent design would be completely different; that's pursuing
dogma, not examining facts.

this is a smoking gun that the WTC were controlled demolition!:eyes:

of logic provided by a story we have to endure the media repeating.

The process is one that starts with one simple inexcusable fact and repeats with others and over time can build from there.

We have to adapt to survive and in this case learn to teach these facts without the context. It is the context that provides the programmed boundaries which halt others from understanding logically what they are looking at. Take this simple inexcusable fact such as the one I present above. Without context what do you have? This is a process in which a person has to provide their own reasoning before they are provided context of the story they are taught to envision. People normally imply what they already think about what they are looking at.

a controlled demolition would not turn steel into orange hot metal.

Seems to me it depends on the methods used.

would create molten metal weeks after the collapse?

I'm not aware of any demolition method that would create
pools of molten metal.

That's not the point. The question is: Can raging jet fuel
infernos that burn out in ten minutes create fires that result
in molten metal in the rubble?

On edit due to LARED's response: If that's not fair, the question is "Is it
reasonanble to think that jet fuel that presumably spilled down the elevators
caused fires in the basements that could make steel yellow-hot weeks later
(when no reports of such fires exist)?"

If not, we need further investigation.

The question is could underground fires at the WTC get hot enough to melt steel.

There is no issue about the fuel fires from the jets, they went out after a short time and we're left with an office fire that collapsed into an underground heap 7+ stories deep. There is a possibility that the fuel that spilled down the elevator shaft started fires in the basements prior to the collapse as well.

You have given that same exact easily debunked answer before, and more then twice.

I don't know any fuel on earth in the quantities found at the WTC site which could produce such heat six weeks post collapse.

Can you provide one?

That is 1000 hours of burning debris under less then optimal conditions at +1800F. Are you incapable of understanding that if this were the case we just solved our mother fucking energy crisis.

what is the significance of your post? Why is this important in regards to 9/11 when no one can explain the temperatures? Either there was a miracle or perhaps no one on this forum really understands how fires in rubble piles work. In either case, so what? What can it possibly signify? I am at a loss about what you are trying to prove other than you can't explain the source of the heat.

I don't understand why you would want me to provide such speculation? It would not aid in the understanding of how these temperatures became in existence where they should not be. I am not in search of possibilities.

The commonly held beliefs around 9-11 don't provide the context which this temperature can exists. What fuel in the quantities which could be provided by the context of 9-11 would keep +1800F for six weeks? More then 1000 hours burning at temperatures which melt steal? Please enlighten me if you can find the contents of the pile which can generate this intensity of heat.

You know it is never knowledge that defines the truth it is that which no longer can be assumed.

why are you so evasive?

does your mind need?

as the only thing it proves is your ignorance. Sorry for the harsh judgment but what other choice do you leave me? Since you are unable to explain or amplify your point and it makes no sense without further context, it is a logical dead end that neither advances or distracts from the 9/11 story.

Color=temperature. What can cause 1800F? You tell me I am stumped.

There is not a fuel in quantities found at the WTC which could be consumed to the temperatures reached in that photo; unless something isn't in the marketed version of 9-11.

You have that to get over before you start calling me illogical.

You have nothing but jet fuel, and office equipment 1500F is not even close enough to give it a maybe.

OK - the temperature is 1800 c and I don't know what caused it. Can you please now tell me why this is important? Are you saying that the impossible occurred or just that neither you or I know enough to explain what happened?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=63721&mesg_id=63871

BTW, if you are going to engage in a scientific based discourse, you should at least understand the issues. Heat is not the issue. Temperature is the issue. IMO, optimal conditions for high temperature is mimicked well in the type of combustion process seen in underground fires, not exclusively mind you, but it works well in my mind.

You still want to believe that a smothered fire will cause this kind of heat, btw temperature asshat is a measurement of heat intensity.

There is something else, you don't have any real world experience do you? It's obvious since you don't understand the optimal conditions it takes to express such intense heat from a reaction. If you did you would know that a proper mixture is a balance. In order for a reaction to reach temperatures in excess of +1800F you need combustible conditions that burned the available fuels at somehow higher then optimal conditions.

Which is where you run into a brick wall of one simple fact once again all because your a very poor bullshit artist.

As for what works well in your mind please that belongs to you I suggest we leave it there. You don't know that temperature is a measurement of heat intensity I think you should stop telling us about the leaps that occur in your mind.

It clearly displays your ignorance regarding the subject. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. It is an opinion formed through experience, education, and a little research.

You are trying to sell some sort of snake oil that the impossible happened. I gave you my best informed opinion as to how something unusual happened. You tell me who's the asshat?

I would attempt to point out where you are mistaken, but you are clearly not going to have an open mind. Go back and do a little research on combustion processes, then get back to me.

Discredit and Distract are the themes you present/

I don't want anyone's opinion and I don't want anyone to take any of mine. You’re obsessed with the concept of your own opinion, haven’t you figured out that opinions are like assholes everyone has got one.

I would like to give my opinion anyone here worth a damn wouldn't ask you or anyone else here to validate their opinion. I asked you to look at a picture and then if you knew of conditions which these temperatures were even possible, you don’t know jack shit. You either copied something someone else wrote or you’ve shoveled that crap so often you don’t know the difference.

There is nothing that can create the output of heat described by its color in the photo above. Nothing that is that has been established as fact in the marketed version of 9-11.

I made it as simple as possible for you and you have nothing; only your opinion.

now what? As far as I see you have absolutely nothing of importance - just an unanswerable question. So what's the point?

If you don't want an opinion why ask.

Posted by libertypirate

I don't know any fuel on earth in the quantities found at the WTC site which could produce such heat six weeks post collapse.

Can you provide one?

My response

I can't provide an answer with precision, because there is no scientific or empirically found methods to provide an answer for me (or anyone I think). The closest thing we have to compare the fires at the WTC are underground fires found in nature in many parts of the world.

Based on this we know underground fires can get very close (or above in some cases) to the melting point of steel. We know there was abundant combustible materials available for the fires. We do not know the extent of materials available or what combinations of materials may have occurred. Some materials when combined make for very hot fires. We know in the basements of the WTC there may have be many sources for non office combustibles, like O2, NG, acetylene, O2, diesel fuels, oils, greases. We also know regular office fires can reach over a 1000 C and higher. We know the adiabatic flame temperatures of most of these combustibles are fairly close to each other (well past the melting point of steel). We know the conditions in an underground fire are favorable for getting closer to an adiabatic flame temp; low heat transfer, low dissociation, near stoichiometric conditions. We know that pressure and time play a role ( a minor one) in the melting point of materials.

So adding this all up tells me finding melted steel, while unusual, is hardly impossible.


You should at least attempt consistency in your rantings.

You state

I don't want anyone's opinion and I don't want anyone to take any of mine.

Then just a few short sentences later you are providing all the world to see YOUR OPINION

There is nothing that can create the output of heat described by its color in the photo above. Nothing that is that has been established as fact in the marketed version of 9-11.

In your haste to establish your ignorance, you neglect to consider that NO ONE IN THE "MARKETED" VERSION OF 9/11 HAS ATTEMPTED to explain molten steel (if it even existed). And your insistence that the impossible occurred is cleary an opinion. One on par with Santa and the Easter bunny.

You then go on

I asked you to look at a picture and then if you knew of conditions which these temperatures were even possible, you don’t know jack shit.

Based on the juvenile stamping of feet claiming the impossible happened I'm pretty confident your expertise stops at Google's door. I gave you an honest assessment of why I thought one might see temperature above 1800 F. You don't have the ability to response to my post. Only name calling.

Sorry I'm not impressed. Oops, I gave you my opinion again.

You either copied something someone else wrote or you’ve shoveled that crap so often you don’t know the difference.

I wrote that all by myself. As for shovelling crap, I'll defer to my better.

ignore government shills.

http://www.911studies.com/

http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911passengerlist.html

they win when we refuse to fight. I fight for what can be observed, not my opinion, when we are free from opinion we find the truth.

They sell opinion and call me snake oil.

An old Spanish teacher of mine always repeated this "repetition is the process of recollection". The more they expose the pattern of misinformation the more can be learned to fight it.

explain how you figured out this is the truth

Posted by Libertypirate

However between the contents of the airplanes and the buildings themselves the maximum temperature the debris should have reached was around 1500F provided to us by the NIST.

You dismiss what others say, yet you have failed to back up our own claims. I'd like to see you step up and provide something to back up your position as outlined above.

(of course within the frames of the market version of 9-11) the maximum temperature could have only reached was 1500F.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

See for yourself....

Please point it out?

2 Days before the September 11 attacks I rang a nationwide talkback show in New Zealand. I forget how the conversation started but after only a couple of sentences I started saying "they dont think". I said this three times. Ill let you imagine who i was talking about. The next thing I did was yell at full volume "WAR" meaning there was going to be one. After this I gave a cry to tell about suffering (er youd have to hear it and what the host was saying) and then showed that I was giving the call everything I had and started saying "the thing, the thing" as a clue to why i was saying there was going to be a war. I finished the call by voicing a gleam in my eye, referring to there going to be a war and what i was saying about it. Err i guess you know what a gleam in ones eye means. So 2 days after yelling theres going to be war the planes hit the buildings. Theres more to the call than this like the host speaking and stuff but its obviously hard to type about a phone call and deliver the exactness of it. I made a point of showing I was giving it everything I had to express how there was going to be a war and everything in the call was to do with war. Umm, the translation of the call into text is a very poor example but i just wanted to post that and see if people have any comments. Like I said its not nearly as powerful as it would be to hear the actual call.

Thanks

I think you are channeling Ray Ubinger.