urchin Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 very nice ad hominem attack. not really making your side look good on a debating ground though is it? anyway, the scientist in me has devised a little experiment that will hopefully prove that humans(especially the casual observer) is extremely bad at identifying molten substances by sight alone. i will post 10 pictures and i want you to guess what the substance is. later on after everybody has had a go, i will post links to the origional pictures so you can check for your selfs that i wasn't lying. since steel is being talked about in this thread, i have included it in the line up. see if you can guess which one it is. each material shows up once and once only. 1/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/1.jpg 2/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/2.jpg 3/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/3.jpg 4/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/4.jpg 5/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/5.jpg 6/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/6.jpg 7/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/7.jpg 8/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/8.jpg 9/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/9.jpg 10/ http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j256/insane_alien_2006/10.jpg if you do not agree that this is fair please tell me and point out where there is flaw. obviously i can't try this as i know which is which. if this is successful it will show that the average joe looking at videos on the net cannot tell what a glowing red liquid substance is. heck, even your professional paul would have trouble. This has absolutly nouthing to do with molten metal found under the WTC. Now you are clutching at straws, maybe the same ones you were referring to when describing how steel girders break. Insane Alain you are insane. Or a gatekeeper. Just live in denial if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 this has everything to do with it. you are showing videos and pictures claiming to show molten steel. who says so? are you sure thats molten steel? can you say 100% that that could be nothing other than steel. if it is so obvious, try the test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 It isn't we who are saying it is steel, it is eyewitnesses, they weren't looking at pictures. Suggest you contact them with your silly experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 but can you trust their opinion? the point of the test is to show that anyone will not be able to tell what the material is beyond, red glowing and fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Don't you think that your beloved heroes NIST, if they had done a thorough investigation, should have found out what it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 but you are going on eyewitness's. why don't you have a go at the test. then see how reliable you think the witnesses would have been. even just do it for kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tree99 Posted June 19, 2007 Author Share Posted June 19, 2007 'insane_alien' I've had a look at the pictures you provided, but I don't think they do much to advance this debate. As has been stated above, the witness reports are not made on the basis of photos or videos from the net, but are instead first hand accounts. However, this link talks a little more about the colour and texture of the molten material which was exhumed from the debris pile: http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part1/index.html Anyway, I'll have a go at trying to select the picture that best looks like molten steel, so my choice is this one: http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ien_2006/5.jpg I could of course be wrong, as molten steel could appear in a number of different colours indicating different temperatures, while still being molten. Also, and I probably shouldn't be encouraging you, but I do appreciate your humour with the last picture, I actually laughed out loud with that one, honestly, very funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 well, i couldn't find a picture of the material i wanted so i thought i'd just slip that in as a blooper. number 5 is actually steel. well, done. although, it is n the first page of a google image search. i like how on the link you posted, the 'examples of molten steel' are actually solid. and the red hot material picked up by the claw is solid. also, the fact that the eyewitnesses were first hand accounts, doesn't really help. if you can mistake it in a picture then you can mistake it in reallife. the point i am trying to get across here is that first hand information is not always reliable. the most information we can glean of them is that there was a molten substance that was red/yellow hot.the source also does not allow for the variations in emissivity which can affect the colour/temperature corelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Insane, I make the point again, this stuff was around for weeks, so why did not NIST investigate what it was. They are your heroes, they have done a super duper scientific investigation, so have they come up with all the answers?? Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 the NIST are not my heroes. i don't know why they didn't investigate it. i'm going on what i have seen in videos and pictures along with my knowledge of science. maybe it was because their focus was on the cause of collapse and not what happened after. remember the cause and effect thing we talked about earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 To the moderators: why are you tolerating this thread? The thread started on a low point (been there, done that) and proceeded downhill. While a 911 conspiracy theory thread differs in subject from a thread on evolution versus creationism, the religious nature of the arguments do not. Take a typical pro-creationist post, substitute NIST with Darwinists, evolution with "the planes did it", and voila, we have a good 911 conspiracy theory post. There is no arguing with a creationist; they are immune to logic, evidence, fair play. We don't allow threads on creationism at this site because they never go anywhere. The same should go for 911 conspiracy theory posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spivver Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 DH, we are patiently waiting for Cap'n to offer his rebuttal arguments to two peer reviewed papers pertaining to why the physics doesn't stack up for the official 911 Commission's explanation as to why the Twin Towers collapsed at close to free-fall speeds. What is not scientific about that? Just because you may not agree with those peer reviewed papers, you simply try to get the thread locked. Perhaps you would also like to read those scientific papers and tell us why they are in error. Again, as promised to Cap'n, I'll forward your comments on to the physicist and engineer involved and get back to you with their reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 19, 2007 Share Posted June 19, 2007 Those weren't peer-reviewed papers, one was a blog post. And the argument against Dr. Griscom is essentially this: The collapse was not initiated by all of the girders collapsing at once. NIST believes it to have been the failure of the core columns collapsing, which, as they collapsed, pulled (through the floor beams) the outside columns inward. The existence of the outer columns was negated by the fact that they were pulled in by the collapse. Also, any estimate of the time to collapse is guaranteed to be inaccurate, simply because the base of the tower was obscured by dust near the end of the collapse. NIST acknowledges this, and says that the 11-second time was for the first columns to hit the ground. Not the complete collapse. Anyway, this thread has run its course. The conspiracy theorists have repeated the same arguments over and over, tried their ad-hominem attacks and appeals to authority, but I will not tolerate it any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts