NASA recorded data WTC #7 ... actual temp of rubble 1,341 degrees F.... 5 days after 9/11 ....

[defendandprotect]

this high a temp is indicative of the use of explosives --

FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of a section of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.

“WTC 7’s rubble pile continued to smolder for months.”9

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/kimball/thirdskyscraper.html

[SDuderstadt]

1. "This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives"

WTF? It's also indicative of a lot pof things. It doesn't prove explosives in the least.

This is why the "truth movement" has morphed into a laughingstock.

[Ohio Joe]

2. My god! Why would that be?

oh wait... google works.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

Tinsley says there are several reasons for the longevity of the fire: "First, this is not a typical fire by any means. The combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. This is the one all future fire scenes will be measured against."

The other reasons are human. For nearly three weeks, Tinsley says, city officials insisted that work at Ground Zero was a rescue operation, meaning it would have been inappropriate to flood the rubble with water. As a result, he says, "the fires had a 17-day head start when we arrived."

And there is the issue of human remains. These are still being found and removed and, since the fires are not threatening any property or lives, they are being allowed to burn on.

Of course, the actual facts won't matter to truthers.

[zappaman]

3. Whoops!

Looks like you got served, D & P!

[defendandprotect]

4. You're saying NASA data is wrong?

[Ohio Joe]

5. No

I'm saying there are real reasons (with facts to back them up) that legitimately account for the data, no fantasies about bombs (that have no evidence) required.

[BeFree]

6. Real reasons?

With facts to back them up?

I'd like to see those facts. Where are they hiding those facts?

[Ohio Joe]

7. See post number 2 - nt

[BeFree]

9. Really?

Are you claiming that no water was used to put out the fire until 17 days later?

[Ohio Joe]

10. No, nor is that what the article says

I'm sure anywhere the fire could have spread it was contained, we are talking a 14 acre area around 50 meters deep though, that leaves a lot of room. No fantasies about bombs are required, though please... amuse me and tell me how these fantasy bombs are responsible and not the un-fought fires.

[BeFree]

11. So

You have no facts to back up the reasons for the fires? Otherwise you'd be posting those facts?

[Ohio Joe]

12. Reasons for the fires?

ummm, they were on fire before they collapsed... are you now disputing that?

[BeFree]

15. I made a mistake, Joe.

defendandprotect
Response to Reply #3
4. You're saying NASA data is wrong?

Ohio Joe
Response to Reply #4
5. No
I'm saying there are real reasons (with facts to back them up) that legitimately account for the data, no fantasies about bombs (that have no evidence) required.

BeFree
Response to Reply #5
6. Real reasons?
With facts to back them up?

I'd like to see those facts. Where are they hiding those facts?
______________________

It isn't reason for the fires, it is real reasons for the NASA data that I'd like to see. You claimed there are facts to back up the data.

Well, where are those facts?

[Ohio Joe]

16. Again, post number 2

Are you having trouble reading what is there or do you dispute the validity of the article? The facts are not being hidden, truthers simply refuse to look at them. Fires burning for weeks un-fought, over 17 acres, in what amounts to a 50 meter pit filled with the remnants of a massive building gives off lots of heat... Which part of this are you having trouble with? What part of this offers proof of explosives being the cause of the heat? Has your fantasy gone that far over the deep end that you are questioning why such fires would give off a lot of heat?

Seriously?

You know... it does not even matter if a person believes in CD or not, as far as I know there is no dispute that the building were on fire when they collapsed. As far as I know there is no dispute on the size of the building or the area they covered. Once they collapsed or were demo'ed (matters not what ones believes, that is not the discussion here), why would anyone be surprised that the rubble, left burning for weeks, would burn very hot?

Seriously?

Exactly what further evidence do you need to prove to you that large, un-fought fires with plenty of fuel burn hot?

[BeFree]

17. So, you have no facts. Ok

Just thought you might want to back up your statements with some real facts.

[Ohio Joe]

18. What facts are you missing?

What are you not understanding? Do you honestly have so little a basic understanding of fire?

At what point will you offer any evidence that explosives were the cause of the heat?

[BeFree]

47. Actually

I don't know what the reason is for the heat signatures NASA picked up.
Actually, no one does. It could be any of several things.

What we do know is that in building fires it takes three things to have a fire.
Fuel, massive amounts of oxygen and ignition.
There was limited fuel (per the OCT), and there was limited oxygen.

And we do know, from evidence, that molten pools of metal were uncovered.

So, I was hoping you did indeed have some facts as to why this fire was very unusual when compared to other building fires.

ETA: And why there were molten pools of some metals found.

[Ohio Joe]

52. Actually, only those that choose to ignore the facts don't know

"I don't know what the reason is for the heat signatures NASA picked up.
Actually, no one does. It could be any of several things."

So... Your just going to ignore the fact of massive fires? I guess that does make it hard for you to explain heat.

"What we do know is that in building fires it takes three things to have a fire.
Fuel, massive amounts of oxygen and ignition.
There was limited fuel (per the OCT), and there was limited oxygen."

So... Your just going to ignore that the buildings were chock full of things that burn? Your going to ignore that the rubble was plenty porous for oxygen? Your just going to ignore that the buildings were on fire when they collapsed?

"And we do know, from evidence, that molten pools of metal were uncovered."

So... You are just going to ignore the fact that the buildings contained lots of different metals that would melt? Your just going to ignore the fact that when said metals melted they... wait for it... Pool?

"So, I was hoping you did indeed have some facts as to why this fire was very unusual when compared to other building fires."

So... You going to ignore the fact that the fires were un-fought for weeks? Your going to ignore the fact that other building fires were not caused by large jets flying into the building at around 500MPH, exploding on impact?

I'll ask again, what facts are you missing? I'll even answer for you. None. What you are doing is willfully choosing to ignore facts and then make silly claims like they are being hidden... Complete and total non-sense. I suggest you go take another look at your list for honest discussion... Even better, you might try following it, if only once in a while.

[BeFree]

55. Wow, some real debate, for once.

Uhm... WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

"Your just going to ignore the fact of massive fires?"
There were no big flames or "massive fires' rising for weeks. Smoke, sure, no flames.

"You going to ignore the fact that the fires were un-fought for weeks?"
The fires were not "un-fought". They put water on the fires.

3 strikes. But nice try. You still don't have the facts needed.

[Ohio Joe]

57. More facts for you to ignore

"Uhm... WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane."

No, it was not, nor did I ever claim it was. But your changing the topic, trying to move the goal posts. We are discussing the fires, do you deny it was on fire when it collapsed?

"There were no big flames or "massive fires' rising for weeks. Smoke, sure, no flames."

So... Still ignoring that this is an area 14 acres large and about 50 meters deep? Never heard of an underground fire? Unaware of the various tunnels underneath the whole area? Just going to ignore all that are you? You think smoke came out for weeks but there was no fire? If the fire were on top it really would not have been as big a deal to put out.

"The fires were not "un-fought". They put water on the fires."

Still going to ignore that that was only in areas where it might spread and that the bulk of it was indeed un-fought?

"3 strikes. But nice try. You still don't have the facts needed."

Just because you choose to ignore when I hit does not make it a strike.

[SDuderstadt]

19. You are deliberately misrepresenting what OJ said...

this why is why people are fed up with you, dude.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Here's something you may want to check out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

Number 8 applies here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. +1 n/t

[BeFree]

45. Check this out. Just for you, Bolo

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist.




9. Show a commitment to critical thinking.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Two more rules you violate regularly....

dude.

You're such a hoot, dude.

[BeFree]

48. Heh

You are like the energizer bunny.

I think it's cute how you follow me around and reply to, what, 90% of my posts even when I wasn't replying to you? What do you do just lurk, waiting and hoping I post something? It's kinda flattering, in a very odd way.

I need a rule for that. Give me a few days, I'll come up with one.

[SDuderstadt]

49. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, dude....

how many rules do you think you violated with this post?

[Bolo Boffin]

61. I linked my citation of your stated ethics to a flagrant violation of them, BeFree

Be so good as to do the same to what you claim I've violated.

[SDuderstadt]

62. As we all know, BeFree just makes shit up.

It it weren't so tiring, it would actually be comical.

If you want to get a sense of how the same tactics are used by someone on the other side, go to www.jasonmattera.com.

[SDuderstadt]

13. He DID provide facts to back up reasons for the fires in....

post # 2, dude. Your dishonesty is simply stunning.

[William Seger]

8. LOL, I'd like to see any facts

... that back up the notion that explosives can cause temperatures that high that last for weeks. I think most (sane) people would assume that you'd need some continuing source of heat -- like, say, a fire ferinstance -- to have that much heat weeks later.

As for your request for facts, do you assume that explosives also caused those clouds of smoke to pour off the debris pile for weeks? Where there's smoke there's explosives?

[Prometheus Bound]

73. You are off topic. The OP issue is the heat of the fire, not its longevity.

Your article didn't address the heat at all.

[SDuderstadt]

74. You don't think there's an interrelationship between the...

longevity and the heat?

[Ohio Joe]

77. Non-sense

Do you seriously think that a 17 acre fire that is un-fought will not have high temps?

[hack89]

14. Explosives don't create prolonged high temperatures

how does a localized explosion that lasts a fraction of a second create huge, long lasting hot spots? Are you saying that explosives started fires that burned for weeks?

[defendandprotect]

20. Thermite, especially that used by the military, will create those temps . . .

the fact is that temperatures that high existed and they were

not related to jet fuel -

[zappaman]

21. "not related to jet fuel"

You know this how?
Please show me the evidence that is was thermite and not jet fuel.
Oh, and the use of thermite would not explain the high temperature.

[defendandprotect]

25. You're saying that jet fuel/kerosene reaches those temperatures?

And, every steel frame building is in danger of failling from fire!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[zappaman]

26. are you laughing

at your own inability to understand physics and/or fire?
why on earth would you think a thermite explosion would burn for days at an intense heat?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Surface temperature is 1341, yet melting point of steel is 2750.

defendandprotect, you must agree that since the temperature NASA measured is less than half of the temperature required to melt steel, there could be no molten steel underneath the Pile, right?

[defendandprotect]

29. I think it's clear to you that I'm laughing at the idea that jet fuel/kerosene would

bring down a steel skyscraper --

You've also obviously seen the contradictions to what you are saying --

and I wouldn't bother repeating them for you.

Ah, the licorice steel argument . . . !!

And, NIST is a private firm working for the government --

Bye --

[hack89]

67. But no one is saying that

and you have been in this forum long enough to know that. You are being dishonest.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. Jet fuel doesn't burn for very long

[Make7]

70. Wouldn't that depend on how much there is? ( n/t )

[zappaman]

71. So?

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[Rosa Luxemburg]

72. heat didn't bring them down

although the buildings were supposed to withstand aircraft I would think that the force of something large travelling at 500 mph would have had some part in it.

[BooBluePotion]

50. So Not Only Did

The 2 Planes crash into WTC 1 - 2 ignite a few floors somewhere near the impact zone and burn until its vastly smoke then this fuel will go on another journey falling down (?) elevator shaft(s), skips over to dismantle WTC7 while maintaining intense temperatures by jet fuel between all 3 collapsed buildings plus their basements. .

No Plane Crashed into WTC 7

[SDuderstadt]

51. You do know that the collapse of one of the towers...

did significant damage to WTC 7 and set it on fire, right?

Your claim that the "fuel skips over to dismantle WTC 7" is probably one of the dumbest and most dishonest claims in this forum.

[BooBluePotion]

53. dude :( WTC 7 no longer stands

Because of this jet fuel that "set it on fire" in a hostile lead to dismantilization.
How
Disingenuous
Of
You not mentioning such a crucial detail :(

[SDuderstadt]

54. The jet fuel didn't set WTC 7 on fire...

it was the flaming debris from the collapse of one of the towers.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[BooBluePotion]

56. Debris burns at 1400 degrees

Or fuel

[SDuderstadt]

58. I still have no idea what the fuck you're babbling about n/t

[hack89]

68. WTC 7 had a 20 story gouge in it

add a bunch of fires that burned unfought for many hours and you get a collapse.

Why are you making shit up about WTC 7?

[defendandprotect]

64. LOVE the part about "skipping over to WTC #7 .... !!!

Hi, "No planer" --

what convinced you!!

Me, too!!

[SDuderstadt]

66. Fucking unbelievable.....n/t

[hack89]

22. Except the themite was expended in seconds and was gone

before the building had finished collapsing. There was no thermite reacting in the rubble pile.

Besides - just how much thermite are you talking about? How much thermite do you need to cut narrow strips through steel columns? You don't need to melt an entire column - just enough to sever it. How much molten steel do you think it would generate - couldn't be more than couple of square meters worth.

Here is your chance do do what the truth movement has failed to do for 9 years - explain exactly how thermite was use at the WTC.

[defendandprotect]

30. Thermite was found in the rubble ...

If you want to know exactly how teerhmite was used at the WTC, think the people

you want to ask are probably Blackwater/KBR -- Bush/Cheney.

[hack89]

31. No - thermite was not found in the pile

there is absolutely no evidence what so ever. But lets say Jones is right - how come no one in the Truth community has advanced that knowledge? It has been three years now? Isn't that enough time to figure out what happened?

I am glad you admit that 9 years later you have not figured out how thermite can be traced to the fires in the rubble pile.

[defendandprotect]

33. Well, I don't know what you've been looking at ...

but thermite has been found -- and in particularly the specific thermite which is

used by the miliary --

And there, again, another coincidence . . .

Anthrax tossed at Congress also traceable to US military --



LOL -- bye

[LARED]

34. That's a bunch of nonsense nt

[SidDithers]

59. And, once again, you don't provide a source to support your claim...

:rofl:

Sid

[zappaman]

32. No, I'm asking you exactly how thermite was used at the WTC

And who says thermite was found in the rubble?

[defendandprotect]

35. Here's how . . .

You're on "ignore" --

Try to overcome your puerile tendencies . . .

[SDuderstadt]

36. Yay!

Zappaman has joined D&P's "ignore list". Does anyone know anyone who isn't on the list now?

[Ohio Joe]

39. It's hard to tell

Sometimes your on... sometimes your off. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

40. It's like the survey of people who...

indicated they watched TV off and on. 83% indicated they liked watching it better on.

[zappaman]

41. wtf?

For asking simple questions and any evidence to support D&Ps wacky theories, I get "ignored"?
Do I get some sort of merit badge?

[SDuderstadt]

42. No, but I'll teach you the secret handshake....

I would say you're in fine company, but D&P is an equal opportunity "ignorer"....it doesn't take much.

That's why she's such a hoot. Oh, and also for having no factual basis for the nonsense she posts.

[SDuderstadt]

43. "Puerile".....

LOLOLOLOL

[snooper2]

76. Yo D&P, what do you do for a living again?

What's your background?


Still waiting for that answer......

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. I'm puzzled by your selective faith in NASA

If I'm not mistaken, you have seriously contemplated the theory that NASA faked the moon landing. Why not some stinking temperature readings?!

(It's not that I think the temperature readings are wrong. I just find it all very odd.)

[hack89]

37. NASA faked the temperatures.

like the moon landing.

[OnTheOtherHand]

38. hey! you owe me a quarter!

(See post immediately above.)

[SDuderstadt]

44. I want my cut....n/t

[hack89]

60. It's in the mail. nt

[defendandprotect]

65. You think NASA faked the temperatures . . .??? Any proof of that ...

The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble.

Maybe you should pass your info on to them?


Meanwhile, of course this went to the moon and back -- !!!





Now there's some real tinfoil -- !!!



:evilgrin:

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Actual temp of rubble - 1341 F. Melting point of steel - 2500 F.

defendandprotect, how could there be pools of molten steel under the Pile if the temperatures were just above half what was needed to melt steel?

[AZCat]

75. If we're going to talk about this...

we should have references to the actual work done by NASA.

ftp://popo.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/docs/workshops/02_docs/2002_Green_wtc_web.pdf (warning - pdf)