The Affliction Of Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter Sinnerman
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not a playground, just an insane asylum full of conspiracy whacko's. I just showed you the scientific acoustic evidence was proven to have happened an hour later and was invalidated. You responded like all conspiracy theorists. You pretended you never read about the acoustic evidence being proven false. You are in denial.
This is how conspiracy folks think. They post stories, not facts, and lean heavily on those stories, as if they were full of facts. Did firemen study the metals? Were they steel or aluminum? What type of advanced study of metals have the firemen done? Most of my firemen friends barely got out of high school with diplomas. They were mostly big strong football players. But you want answers, so I'll provide you with some.
11 Settembre: UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2?
Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow.
***
On September 3, 2006, I took part in the second Speciale TG1 program on 9/11 mysteries broadcast by Italian national TV station Raiuno. During the program, the presenter, Roberto Olla, asked me what I thought of the incandescent material which was seen and taped as it flowed out of the 80th-81st floors of the north face of the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC2), shortly before the building collapsed. This is a well-known video, which many conspiracy theorists use as evidence that there was molten steel in the South Tower before it collapsed. The flowing material has not been identified beyond doubt. The prevailing expert opinion is that it was molten aluminum, not steel, mixed with other materials from the affected floor which came into contact with the molten or very hot metal. NIST clarified its opinion on this matter in the FAQ document it published in August 2006. Its conjecture is that the flow originated from a puddle of molten aluminum from the structure of the Boeing 767-200 that hit the Tower at the affected floor, with the addition of other materials, such as resins, plastics, glass from office furnishings and from the interior walls. As the floor trusses of the 81st and 80th floors failed and tilted, the puddle was provided with a path to flow outward. The failure of these floors is documented also by photographs taken from outside the building, which show the floor trusses assuming positions which differed greatly from their design configuration.
According to NIST, therefore, light alloyed material from the aircraft and from the building melted and pooled on the floor. This melting was allowed by the very high temperatures of the raging fire which affected the 80th and 81st floor near the north face of the tower. The material flowed probably from the 81st floor onto the 80th and then flowed outward from there, after entraining materials, such as calcium sulfate (gypsum) and plastics, which were abundantly present in the building..
.
My opinion on this subject is fairly straightforward: I don't think it is molten steel for the simple reason that this material flowed for several minutes from the same position, yet there were no signs of any melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face, which would have been in direct contact with this molten material. It is quite obvious that the steel structure of the face would have been affected if the temperature of the molten flow had been close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500 °C) but it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy at 600-650 °C, even if it had been superheated to approximately 800 °C. .
11 Settembre: UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2?
Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow.
***
According to NIST, therefore, light alloyed material from the aircraft and from the building melted and pooled on the floor. This melting was allowed by the very high temperatures of the raging fire which affected the 80th and 81st floor near the north face of the tower. The material flowed probably from the 81st floor onto the 80th and then flowed outward from there, after entraining materials, such as calcium sulfate (gypsum) and plastics, which were abundantly present in the building.
.
My opinion on this subject is fairly straightforward: I don't think it is molten steel for the simple reason that this material flowed for several minutes from the same position, yet there were no signs of any melting of the supporting steel structure of the building face, which would have been in direct contact with this molten material. It is quite obvious that the steel structure of the face would have been affected if the temperature of the molten flow had been close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500 °C) but it would have had no trouble withstanding a molten light alloy at 600-650 °C, even if it had been superheated to approximately 800 °C. .
Molten Metal
[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1]More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by [/SIZE]One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering[SIZE=-1], [/SIZE] Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]
The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...
[HR][/HR]Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.
[HR][/HR]Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholars for 911 truth" we can continue...
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...
[HR][/HR]Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1
Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1
[HR][/HR]Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholars for 911 truth" we can continue...
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
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 (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt.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 (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Here are some graphics showing where the airliner ended up.
One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
[SIZE=-1]More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by [/SIZE]One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering[SIZE=-1], [/SIZE] Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester[SIZE=-1].[/SIZE]
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximately 22 minutes. whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...[/SIZE][/FONT]
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
[SIZE=-1]Jones writes:[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum.
[HR][/HR]Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
How are Spectra Produced?
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible...
The above is what the floors may have looked like.
Yet another possibility is the flow creating a temporary dam by doing exactly what Jones describes. Like a candle which has melted to the floor, the aluminum may have melted and cooled as it flowed away from the heat source. This cooled aluminum builds up and creates a shallow pool of aluminum. Much like candle wax pooling around the wick while cooler wax, away from the wick, builds up creating a levee/dam around the liquid wax. Once the floors sagged toward the window as shown in the NIST Report the pool may have spilled over and out of the window.
Now, I'm no "Professor" but I think there was a "high probability" aluminum could have pooled near a heat source.
Interestingly, the conspiracy theorists have grasped onto another straw. The photo below shows another stream of fluid in another place but this time it's the color Jones points to as aluminum.
[SIZE=-1]Jones writes:[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
[HR][/HR]Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.
Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.
The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"
First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.
I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]
Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."
If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.
Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?
The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8
Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.
Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.
The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.
THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.
Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.
I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.
Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Stephen D. Chastain
[HR][/HR]The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color. The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"
First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.
I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]
Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."
If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.
Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?
The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8
Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.
Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.
The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.
THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.
Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.
I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.
Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Stephen D. Chastain
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
How are Spectra Produced?
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible...
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 [SUP]o[/SUP]C and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."
The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were in to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact, I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner. In 5 years, Jones couldn't envision a sag in the floor enough to hold melted aluminum?
Yet another possibility is the flow creating a temporary dam by doing exactly what Jones describes. Like a candle which has melted to the floor, the aluminum may have melted and cooled as it flowed away from the heat source. This cooled aluminum builds up and creates a shallow pool of aluminum. Much like candle wax pooling around the wick while cooler wax, away from the wick, builds up creating a levee/dam around the liquid wax. Once the floors sagged toward the window as shown in the NIST Report the pool may have spilled over and out of the window.
Now, I'm no "Professor" but I think there was a "high probability" aluminum could have pooled near a heat source.
Interestingly, the conspiracy theorists have grasped onto another straw. The photo below shows another stream of fluid in another place but this time it's the color Jones points to as aluminum.
Note as with the other flow, it's also where the building sustained heavy damage from the airliner and also has a very heavy fire.
Another source of heat hasn't been touched by any conspiracy theorist. There were many chemical oxygen generators in the airliner. They just happen to be wrapped with aluminum.
CNN - How safe are oxygen generators? - May 16, 1996
Here is what a chemical oxygen generator looks like when it's burning.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/19/valujet.final/valujet.reenact.47.mov
These are NOT oxygen tanks. They are generators which make oxygen under chemical reaction.
Yet there is even evidence this isn't thermite...
"it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point"
But what of Jones evidence for thermite like this?
"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce."
Yet, once again, we find in his own paper that it states..
Here is what a chemical oxygen generator looks like when it's burning.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/19/valujet.final/valujet.reenact.47.mov
These are NOT oxygen tanks. They are generators which make oxygen under chemical reaction.
Yet there is even evidence this isn't thermite...
Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.
During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.
pg 412,413,114 chap 9
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Thermite can't walk from one window to another. A pool of aluminum which is guided by floors sagging at different stages can shift directions. A POOL of metal melted by thermite could move with sagging floors just like the aluminum but not according to Jones because...During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.
pg 412,413,114 chap 9
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
"it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point"
But what of Jones evidence for thermite like this?
"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce."
Yet, once again, we find in his own paper that it states..
Under section 11
"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) While this is the maximum air temperature possible in the WTC fires, this does not mean that the structural steel reached this temperature in the time the fires acted. Indeed, NIST emphasizes that there was no evidence that "any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." This statement is consistent with their data plots of "predicted column temperatures", which "shows maximum temperature reached by each column" in that no temperature above 600 ºC is given for any of the steel columns. (NIST, 2005.)
Jones goes on to talk about structural steel but we aren't talking about the "predicted column temperatures" are we. Nor was the NIST suggesting the structural steel had to melt in order to collapse the building. No one is. This is a straw man. 600C is good enough to weaken structural steel. Now back to the aluminum..."Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) While this is the maximum air temperature possible in the WTC fires, this does not mean that the structural steel reached this temperature in the time the fires acted. Indeed, NIST emphasizes that there was no evidence that "any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." This statement is consistent with their data plots of "predicted column temperatures", which "shows maximum temperature reached by each column" in that no temperature above 600 ºC is given for any of the steel columns. (NIST, 2005.)
It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Even wood might have affected the color...
This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here. I'm not saying aluminum and wood only. One of my biggest criticisms with the conspiracy theorists is the one dimensional thinking.
The main point is, jumping to the conclusion that it's thermite is intellectually lazy given all the other possibilities. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a lack of evidence is evidence of something. Yet this is the conspiracy theorist credo.
Below are some quotes from different sources concerning the flow...
a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
Here's another article on the aluminum
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/03/30/129774
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit
WTC Disaster Study
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
I highlighted the qualifiers because some conspiracy theorists seem to be 'qualifier challenged'. Sounded like, looks like, appear to be, possibly, suggest, as if... these are just a few qualifiers the conspiracy theorists ignore.In keeping with this trend, the conspiracy theorists have said the NIST was SURE it was aluminum using the above quotes. They are just saying what I'm saying. The evidence points to it being aluminum. They conclude it's aluminum.
[HR][/HR]Update:
Italian debunker uncovers yet another possible cause of the what we see coming from the 81st floor window.
[HR][/HR]Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
The main point is, jumping to the conclusion that it's thermite is intellectually lazy given all the other possibilities. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a lack of evidence is evidence of something. Yet this is the conspiracy theorist credo.
Below are some quotes from different sources concerning the flow...
The NY Times article
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
Here's another article on the aluminum
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/03/30/129774
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit
WTC Disaster Study
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
[HR][/HR]Update:
Italian debunker uncovers yet another possible cause of the what we see coming from the 81st floor window.
Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow.
This is not a photo of the WTC battery banks. For illustration only. http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
This also adds even more sulfur to debris pile.
This is not a photo of the WTC battery banks. For illustration only.
This also adds even more sulfur to debris pile.
[HR][/HR]Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
- NEU-FONZE
[HR][/HR]More on this iron-H2O reaction:
Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:
Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache
dpu-...us&ct=clnk&cd=8
Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation
In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."
"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation
Also: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.js...&isnumber=29811
[HR][/HR].
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
- NEU-FONZE
[HR][/HR]More on this iron-H2O reaction:
Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:
"steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?module=C...n&mid=10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?module=C...n&mid=10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf
Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache
dpu-...us&ct=clnk&cd=8Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation
In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."
"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
Fuel cell using an aqueous hydrogen-generating process - H Power Corporation
Also: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.js...&isnumber=29811
[HR][/HR].
Sinnerman, thermite was found at wtc, the why thermite and " other " explosive, would be to get the results as expected, I don't need a paragraph to tell me why using thermite & explosives together is foolish. It obviously looks like they had both. So how fast were these planes going when they hit ? So aluminum wing tips ... THAT CANT HOLD GAS, sliced through steel beams.
so now you went from there is no firemen saying that, to discrediting the fire men's knowledge of metals, though he's the CAPTAIN, and deals with fire DAILY. They know what they saw, it just doesn't fit the narrative.
so now you went from there is no firemen saying that, to discrediting the fire men's knowledge of metals, though he's the CAPTAIN, and deals with fire DAILY. They know what they saw, it just doesn't fit the narrative.
You're right. Not everything is a conspiracy.
....but some things are.
One cannot group all who believe that men are capable of lying about an event, as whackjobs. You all label it conspiracy...... I call it finding out if what lm told is true.....no matter how much the truth will hurt. Yes, call me whacky.
Are men corrupt? That is, men who do not believe or follow God?
Yes? No?
Can't have it both ways? Either they are or they're not. So, men lie, especially powerful men. Godless men. ......since Adam.....(oh, except American men , they never lie)
Believing everything you're told by the news takes a special sort of denial....they like that...feed the sheeple....at the same time label those who care to know the truth, as nutcases.
Sinnerman, how does one remain blissful?
....but some things are.
One cannot group all who believe that men are capable of lying about an event, as whackjobs. You all label it conspiracy...... I call it finding out if what lm told is true.....no matter how much the truth will hurt. Yes, call me whacky.
Are men corrupt? That is, men who do not believe or follow God?
Yes? No?
Can't have it both ways? Either they are or they're not. So, men lie, especially powerful men. Godless men. ......since Adam.....(oh, except American men , they never lie)
Believing everything you're told by the news takes a special sort of denial....they like that...feed the sheeple....at the same time label those who care to know the truth, as nutcases.
Sinnerman, how does one remain blissful?
It's not difficult. When an event happens, there are people who are trained to understand why they happened. They are experts. They can explain the event using science and facts and evidence and eye witnesses. So when someone else goes on the internet who is not an expert, but promises they are only trying to find the truth, and they suggest an explanation that goes against the experts and the science and the eye witnesses, I am suspicious of them. Then I find out they have a number of crazy beliefs that do not hold up to scrutiny. Then, when I confront such a person, as I did above, and prove to them a missile did not hit the Pentagon and you and I can plainly see debris from the airliner spread over the grounds of the Pentagon, clearly disproving the conspiracy theory, what happens? The conspiracy nut moves on without comment, to some other conspiracy. They don't like to face the facts. They run from the evidence. They have an endless list to run to.
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11? You tell me. Then tell me why you believe it to be true. Then tell me what you think of someone who believes a missile hit the Pentagon.
Same with JFK. I have confronted several people here about the JFK assassination. One said LBJ was involved. Did they post any evidence to prove it? No. I was told there were several shooters. Was any evidence produced? No. One person said that scientific acoustic evidence suggested there were four shots fired and that means more than one shooter. I produced evidence that the acoustic evidence theory was thoroughly debunked. It was merely a motorcycle cops radio mic left open that caused a noise someone felt might be a gunshot. They don't like to discuss the part about it happening an hour after JFK was shot.
So anyone can make up a theory. It's entirely different to provide evidence and proof of that theory. That is when the conspiracy nuts run and hide. Or move on to a different theory to see if that is more convincing. It starts on the internet and usually involves someone hiding information or altering a picture or taking something a fireman says out of context, and then spinning a tale of thermite and molten steel that was based on something seen as the towers burned or collapsed, that was never proven true and was easily proven false.
You tell me you own conspiracy about JFK or 9/11. I'll disprove it and you will ignore that evidence and try to change the subject. Try it, you'll see.
What hit the Pentagon on 9/11? You tell me. Then tell me why you believe it to be true. Then tell me what you think of someone who believes a missile hit the Pentagon.
Same with JFK. I have confronted several people here about the JFK assassination. One said LBJ was involved. Did they post any evidence to prove it? No. I was told there were several shooters. Was any evidence produced? No. One person said that scientific acoustic evidence suggested there were four shots fired and that means more than one shooter. I produced evidence that the acoustic evidence theory was thoroughly debunked. It was merely a motorcycle cops radio mic left open that caused a noise someone felt might be a gunshot. They don't like to discuss the part about it happening an hour after JFK was shot.
So anyone can make up a theory. It's entirely different to provide evidence and proof of that theory. That is when the conspiracy nuts run and hide. Or move on to a different theory to see if that is more convincing. It starts on the internet and usually involves someone hiding information or altering a picture or taking something a fireman says out of context, and then spinning a tale of thermite and molten steel that was based on something seen as the towers burned or collapsed, that was never proven true and was easily proven false.
You tell me you own conspiracy about JFK or 9/11. I'll disprove it and you will ignore that evidence and try to change the subject. Try it, you'll see.
No response? Beg your pardon, I had several responses. I'll try again.
If I'm correct, you seem to say that you are putting all of your money or belief into the theory that acoustic evidence proves, or at least suggests that there was more than one shooter. Other than that acoustic evidence, you have nothing to prove your theory, correct?
Try this. type the words; Acoustic Evidence in Kennedy Shooting Fails into a search engine and view the many different sites with information that clearly shows the acoustic evidence you are clinging to is invalid. It was thoroughly proven invalid.
Now read this.
John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:
John F. Kennedy
A Dictabelt recording from a microphone stuck in the open position on a motorcycle police officer's radio in the vicinity of the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, has been used as evidence related to the assassination. The recording, made on a common Dictaphone dictation machine that recorded sounds in grooves pressed into a thin plastic belt, gained prominence among Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists since 1978, when it was the only piece of evidence that prompted the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to conclude that there was a "high probability" that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Later scientific examination discredited this interpretation of the evidence.
The recording was made from Dallas police radio channel 1, which carried routine police radio traffic (channel 2 was reserved for special events, such as the presidential motorcade). The open-microphone portion of the recording lasts 5.5 minutes, and begins about 12:29 p.m. local time, about a minute before the assassination at 12:30 p.m.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Verbal time stamps were made periodically by the police radio dispatcher and can be heard on the recording.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Contents
[hide]
House Select Committee on Assassinations[edit]
In December 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had prepared a draft of its final report, concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone as the assassin. However, after evidence from the Dictabelt recording was made available, the HSCA quickly reversed its conclusion and declared that a second gunman had fired the third of four shots heard. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA, later said, "If the acoustics come out that we made a mistake somewhere, I think that would end it." Despite serious criticism of the scientific evidence and the HSCA's conclusions, speculation regarding the Dictabelt and the possibility of a second gunman persisted.
Investigators compared "impulse patterns" (suspected gunshots and associated echos) on the Dictabelt to 1978 test recordings of Carcano rifles fired in Dealey Plaza from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and from a stockade fence on the grassy knoll forward and to the right of the location of the presidential limousine. On this basis, the acoustics firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman concluded that impulse patterns 1, 2, and 4 were shots fired from the Depository, and that there was a 50% chance that impulse pattern 3 was a shot from the grassy knoll. Acoustics analysts Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy of Queens College reviewed the BBN data and concluded that "with the probability of 95% or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll."[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][not in citation given][/SUP]
Dr. James E. Barger, of Bolt, Beranek and Newman, testified to the HSCA that his statistical analysis of the impulse patterns captured on the Dallas police recordings showed that the motorcycle with the open microphone was approximately "120 to 138 feet" behind the presidential limousine at the time of the first shot.[SUP][8][/SUP] When the HSCA asked Weiss about the location of the motorcycle with the open microphone—"Would you consider that to be an essential ingredient in the ultimate conclusion of your analysis?"—Weiss answered, "It is an essential component of it, because, if you do not put the motorcycle in the place that it is —the initial point of where it was receiving the [sound of the gunfire]—, and if you do not move it at the velocity at which it is being moved on paper in this re-creation, you do not get a good, tight pattern that compares very well with the observed impulses on the police tape recording."[SUP][9][/SUP]
The HSCA, using an amateur film shot of the motorcade,[SUP][10][/SUP] concluded that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H. B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the recording did not match his movements. Sirens are not heard on the recording until more than two minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting; however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time. When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by. McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no comparison to the two sounds."[SUP][11][/SUP]
Other audio discrepancies also exist. Crowd noise is not heard on the Dictabelt recording, despite the sounds generated from the many onlookers along Dallas's Main Street and in Dealey Plaza (crowd noises can be heard on at least ten channel-2 transmissions from the motorcade). Someone is heard whistling a tune about a minute after the assassination.[SUP][12][/SUP] No one actually heard gunshots on the recording.[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP]
The only evidence that HSCA had for a second shooter was the Dictabelt sound recording.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP] Four of the twelve HSCA members dissented to the HSCA's conclusion of conspiracy based on the acoustic findings, and a fifth thought a further study of the acoustic evidence was "necessary".[SUP][18][/SUP] Dissenting members of the committee included Congressmen Samuel L. Devine, Robert W. Edgar, and Harold S. Sawyer.[SUP][19][/SUP] Responding to a question asking how he would handle the Committee's report if he were at the Justice Department, Sawyer replied: "I'd file it in a circular file." [SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]
Criticism[edit]
If I'm correct, you seem to say that you are putting all of your money or belief into the theory that acoustic evidence proves, or at least suggests that there was more than one shooter. Other than that acoustic evidence, you have nothing to prove your theory, correct?
Try this. type the words; Acoustic Evidence in Kennedy Shooting Fails into a search engine and view the many different sites with information that clearly shows the acoustic evidence you are clinging to is invalid. It was thoroughly proven invalid.
Now read this.
John F. Kennedy assassination Dictabelt recording
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:
John F. Kennedy
A Dictabelt recording from a microphone stuck in the open position on a motorcycle police officer's radio in the vicinity of the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, has been used as evidence related to the assassination. The recording, made on a common Dictaphone dictation machine that recorded sounds in grooves pressed into a thin plastic belt, gained prominence among Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists since 1978, when it was the only piece of evidence that prompted the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to conclude that there was a "high probability" that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone and the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy. Later scientific examination discredited this interpretation of the evidence.
The recording was made from Dallas police radio channel 1, which carried routine police radio traffic (channel 2 was reserved for special events, such as the presidential motorcade). The open-microphone portion of the recording lasts 5.5 minutes, and begins about 12:29 p.m. local time, about a minute before the assassination at 12:30 p.m.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Verbal time stamps were made periodically by the police radio dispatcher and can be heard on the recording.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Contents
[hide]
- 1 House Select Committee on Assassinations
- 2 Criticism
- 3 National Academy of Sciences
- 4 Further analysis
- 5 Digital restoration
- 6 Possible origins
- 7 Further reading
- 8 References
House Select Committee on Assassinations[edit]
In December 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had prepared a draft of its final report, concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone as the assassin. However, after evidence from the Dictabelt recording was made available, the HSCA quickly reversed its conclusion and declared that a second gunman had fired the third of four shots heard. G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel of the HSCA, later said, "If the acoustics come out that we made a mistake somewhere, I think that would end it." Despite serious criticism of the scientific evidence and the HSCA's conclusions, speculation regarding the Dictabelt and the possibility of a second gunman persisted.
Investigators compared "impulse patterns" (suspected gunshots and associated echos) on the Dictabelt to 1978 test recordings of Carcano rifles fired in Dealey Plaza from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and from a stockade fence on the grassy knoll forward and to the right of the location of the presidential limousine. On this basis, the acoustics firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman concluded that impulse patterns 1, 2, and 4 were shots fired from the Depository, and that there was a 50% chance that impulse pattern 3 was a shot from the grassy knoll. Acoustics analysts Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy of Queens College reviewed the BBN data and concluded that "with the probability of 95% or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll."[SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][not in citation given][/SUP]
Dr. James E. Barger, of Bolt, Beranek and Newman, testified to the HSCA that his statistical analysis of the impulse patterns captured on the Dallas police recordings showed that the motorcycle with the open microphone was approximately "120 to 138 feet" behind the presidential limousine at the time of the first shot.[SUP][8][/SUP] When the HSCA asked Weiss about the location of the motorcycle with the open microphone—"Would you consider that to be an essential ingredient in the ultimate conclusion of your analysis?"—Weiss answered, "It is an essential component of it, because, if you do not put the motorcycle in the place that it is —the initial point of where it was receiving the [sound of the gunfire]—, and if you do not move it at the velocity at which it is being moved on paper in this re-creation, you do not get a good, tight pattern that compares very well with the observed impulses on the police tape recording."[SUP][9][/SUP]
The HSCA, using an amateur film shot of the motorcade,[SUP][10][/SUP] concluded that the recording originated from the motorcycle of police officer H. B. McLain, who later testified before the committee that his microphone was often stuck in the open position. However, McLain did not hear the actual recording until after his testimony, and upon hearing it he adamantly denied that the recording originated from his motorcycle. He said that the other sounds on the recording did not match his movements. Sirens are not heard on the recording until more than two minutes after what is supposed to be the sound of the shooting; however, McLain accompanied the motorcade to Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting, with sirens blaring the entire time. When the sirens are heard on the Dictabelt recording, they rise and recede in pitch (the Doppler effect) and volume, as if passing by. McLain also said that the engine sound was clearly from a three-wheeled motorcycle, not the two-wheeler that he drove: "There's no comparison to the two sounds."[SUP][11][/SUP]
Other audio discrepancies also exist. Crowd noise is not heard on the Dictabelt recording, despite the sounds generated from the many onlookers along Dallas's Main Street and in Dealey Plaza (crowd noises can be heard on at least ten channel-2 transmissions from the motorcade). Someone is heard whistling a tune about a minute after the assassination.[SUP][12][/SUP] No one actually heard gunshots on the recording.[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP]
The only evidence that HSCA had for a second shooter was the Dictabelt sound recording.[SUP][15][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP] Four of the twelve HSCA members dissented to the HSCA's conclusion of conspiracy based on the acoustic findings, and a fifth thought a further study of the acoustic evidence was "necessary".[SUP][18][/SUP] Dissenting members of the committee included Congressmen Samuel L. Devine, Robert W. Edgar, and Harold S. Sawyer.[SUP][19][/SUP] Responding to a question asking how he would handle the Committee's report if he were at the Justice Department, Sawyer replied: "I'd file it in a circular file." [SUP][19][/SUP][SUP][20][/SUP]
Criticism[edit]
cont. from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][not in citation given][/SUP] showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area.[SUP][22][/SUP]
The adult magazine Gallery published a flexi disc of the Dictabelt recording in its July 1979 issue.[SUP][23][/SUP]Ohio rock drummer Steve Barber listened to that recording repeatedly and heard the words "Hold everything secure" at the point where the HSCA had concluded the assassination shots were recorded.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, those words were spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker about a minute after the assassination, so the shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.[SUP][24][/SUP]
The Technical Services Division of the FBI studied the acoustical data and issued a report on December 1, 1980 (dated November 19, 1980). The FBI report concluded that the HSCA failed to prove that there were gunshots on the recording and also failed to prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza. In fact, using the techniques of the previous investigators, the FBI matched a gunshot recorded in Greensboro, NC in 1979 with the sound that was supposedly a shot from the grassy knoll - proving that the initial investigation's methods were invalid.[SUP][25][/SUP]
National Academy of Sciences[edit]
After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization operating with a Title 36 congressional charter.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study.[SUP][26][/SUP] The NAS panel unanimously concluded that:
Dr. Barger, the HSCA's acoustics expert, when asked about this discovery and the NAS analysis, replied,
Further analysis[edit]
The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988, and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.[SUP][37][/SUP]
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.[SUP][38][/SUP]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[SUP][39][/SUP] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Digital restoration[edit]
In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.
In the March 2005 issue of Reader's Digest, it was reported that Carl Haber and Vitaliy Fadeyev were assigned with the task of digitally restoring Dictabelt 10 by Leslie Waffen from the National Archives. Their method consisted of using sensors to map the microscopic contours of the tracks of old sound recordings without having to play them using a stylus, which would further degrade the sound. Dictabelt 10 was worn from countless playings and cracked due to improper storage.[SUP][41][/SUP] By 2010 digital restoration of the Dictabelt seemed a more distant prospect, with both funding and final approval for the project unlikely to be secured in the near future.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Possible origins[edit]
Left unanswered by the professional analyses was the question of whose open microphone captured the sounds recorded on the Dictabelt, if not Officer H.B. McLain. Jim Bowles, a Dallas police dispatcher supervisor in November 1963, and later Dallas County Sheriff, believes it originated from a particular officer on a three-wheeled motorcycle stationed at the Dallas Trade Mart, the original destination of President Kennedy's motorcade, along the same freeway to Parkland Hospital, which would account for the sound of sirens rushing by. McLain himself believes that it was from a different officer on a three-wheeler near the Trade Mart, who was known for his whistling. When interviewed by author Vincent Bugliosi, the officer acknowledged that his microphone could have been stuck in the open position (he did not recall hearing any transmissions for several minutes), and could later have become unstuck after he followed the motorcade to Parkland Hospital.[SUP][42][/SUP]
Further reading[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][not in citation given][/SUP] showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area.[SUP][22][/SUP]
The adult magazine Gallery published a flexi disc of the Dictabelt recording in its July 1979 issue.[SUP][23][/SUP]Ohio rock drummer Steve Barber listened to that recording repeatedly and heard the words "Hold everything secure" at the point where the HSCA had concluded the assassination shots were recorded.[SUP][3][/SUP] However, those words were spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker about a minute after the assassination, so the shots could not be when the HSCA claimed.[SUP][24][/SUP]
The Technical Services Division of the FBI studied the acoustical data and issued a report on December 1, 1980 (dated November 19, 1980). The FBI report concluded that the HSCA failed to prove that there were gunshots on the recording and also failed to prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza. In fact, using the techniques of the previous investigators, the FBI matched a gunshot recorded in Greensboro, NC in 1979 with the sound that was supposedly a shot from the grassy knoll - proving that the initial investigation's methods were invalid.[SUP][25][/SUP]
National Academy of Sciences[edit]
After the FBI disputed the validity of the acoustic evidence, the Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, an organization operating with a Title 36 congressional charter.
On May 14, 1982, the panel of experts chaired by Harvard University's Norman Ramsey, released the results of their study.[SUP][26][/SUP] The NAS panel unanimously concluded that:
The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."[SUP][27][/SUP]
According to Ramsey, noises on the Dictabelt were "probably static".[SUP][28][/SUP] Louis Stokes, a member of the United States House of Representatives who chaired the HSCA, commented that the report "raised new and serious questions about our conclusions that need to be resolved."[SUP][26][/SUP]The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."[SUP][27][/SUP]
Dr. Barger, the HSCA's acoustics expert, when asked about this discovery and the NAS analysis, replied,
Barber discovered a very weak spoken phrase on the DPD Dictabelt recording that is heard at about the time of the sound impulses we concluded were probably caused by the fourth shot. The NAS Committee has shown to our satisfaction that this phrase has the same origin as the same phrase heard also on the Audograph recording.[SUP][29][/SUP] The Audograph recording was originally made from the channel 2 radio. The common phrase is heard on channel 2 about a minute after the assassination would appear, from the context, to have taken place. Therefore, it would seem . . . that the sounds that we connected with gunfire were made about a minute after the assassination shots were fired. Upon reading the NAS report, we did a brief analysis of the Audograph dub that was made by the NAS Committee and loaned to us by them. We found some enigmatic features of this recording that occur at about the time that individuals react to the assassination. Therefore, we have doubt about the time synchronization of events on that recording, and so we doubt that the Barber hypothesis is proven. The NAS Committee did not examine the several items of evidence that corroborated our original findings, so that we still agree with the House Select Committee on Assassinations conclusion that our findings were corroborated[SUP][30][/SUP]
An analysis published in the March 2001 issue of Science & Justice by Dr. Donald B. Thomas used a different radio transmission synchronization to put forth the claim that the National Academy of Sciences panel was in error. Thomas' conclusion, very similar to the HSCA conclusion, was that the gunshot impulses were real to a 96.3% certainty. Thomas presented additional details and support in the November 2001 and September and November 2002 issues.[SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP] Commenting on Thomas's study, G. Robert Blakey said: "This is an honest, careful scientific examination of everything we did, with all the appropriate statistical checks."[SUP][35][/SUP] In 2005, Thomas' conclusions were rebutted in the same journal. Ralph Linsker and several members of the original NAS team, (Richard Garwin, Herman Chernoff, Paul Horowitz, and Ramsey) reanalyzed the timings of the recordings and reaffirmed in an article in Science & Justice the earlier conclusion of the NAS report that the alleged shot sounds were recorded approximately one minute after the assassination.[SUP][36][/SUP]
Further analysis[edit]
The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988, and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.[SUP][37][/SUP]
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.[SUP][38][/SUP]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[SUP][39][/SUP] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[SUP][40][/SUP]
Digital restoration[edit]
In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.
In the March 2005 issue of Reader's Digest, it was reported that Carl Haber and Vitaliy Fadeyev were assigned with the task of digitally restoring Dictabelt 10 by Leslie Waffen from the National Archives. Their method consisted of using sensors to map the microscopic contours of the tracks of old sound recordings without having to play them using a stylus, which would further degrade the sound. Dictabelt 10 was worn from countless playings and cracked due to improper storage.[SUP][41][/SUP] By 2010 digital restoration of the Dictabelt seemed a more distant prospect, with both funding and final approval for the project unlikely to be secured in the near future.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
Possible origins[edit]
Left unanswered by the professional analyses was the question of whose open microphone captured the sounds recorded on the Dictabelt, if not Officer H.B. McLain. Jim Bowles, a Dallas police dispatcher supervisor in November 1963, and later Dallas County Sheriff, believes it originated from a particular officer on a three-wheeled motorcycle stationed at the Dallas Trade Mart, the original destination of President Kennedy's motorcade, along the same freeway to Parkland Hospital, which would account for the sound of sirens rushing by. McLain himself believes that it was from a different officer on a three-wheeler near the Trade Mart, who was known for his whistling. When interviewed by author Vincent Bugliosi, the officer acknowledged that his microphone could have been stuck in the open position (he did not recall hearing any transmissions for several minutes), and could later have become unstuck after he followed the motorcade to Parkland Hospital.[SUP][42][/SUP]
Further reading[edit]
How's that?
Can you please post a statement now that says you now understand that the acoustic evidence that once led some to believe their was a fourth gunshot has been proven invalid? How can you read the many summaries and evidence and statements and conclude otherwise? It could only mean you have never sought out the truth and refuse to go where the evidence takes you. You are holding onto a theory that was proven invalid. Furthermore, there has never been any proof of a second shooter or four bullets being fired.
How did you miss the mountain of evidence showing your theory was proven wrong. How can you google acoustic evidence in Kennedy shooting and not see that most of the sites that come up discuss how your conspiracy theory was easily proven invalid? How do you call yourself someone who seeks the truth. You don't seek anything other than affirmation of your conspiracy beliefs.
Now go ahead and respond. And please tell me what you think happened that day. You conspiracy nuts are always slippery about what you actually believe. You spend your time arguing over nonsense and refuse to state what it is that you believe and then support it with evidence.
Did you notice how you got several likes from Ladybug. Did you notice she posted that she was going to read all the evidence that Oswald was the only shooter and there is no evidence of anyone else involved. Notice how quiet she has been. Does anyone think she will come back here and say she was mistaken and failed to read the evidence before now? Of course not. She will hold onto the LBJ theory and never post evidence supporting that theory.
I'd love to see a conspiracy nut in court, challenging a speeding ticket. You'd tell the judge that you didn't do it. The officer would state he clocked you on radar going over the speed limit and your response would be that you were someplace else that day. He'd have proof he took your drivers license and had you sign the ticket and you'd keep on saying that was someone else, you were home sick that day. The judge would roll his eyes and ask if that is your entire defense and you'd tell him, why yes sir, it must have been an imposter driving my car and using my drivers license. How do you argue with someone so completely out of their mind?
Can you please post a statement now that says you now understand that the acoustic evidence that once led some to believe their was a fourth gunshot has been proven invalid? How can you read the many summaries and evidence and statements and conclude otherwise? It could only mean you have never sought out the truth and refuse to go where the evidence takes you. You are holding onto a theory that was proven invalid. Furthermore, there has never been any proof of a second shooter or four bullets being fired.
How did you miss the mountain of evidence showing your theory was proven wrong. How can you google acoustic evidence in Kennedy shooting and not see that most of the sites that come up discuss how your conspiracy theory was easily proven invalid? How do you call yourself someone who seeks the truth. You don't seek anything other than affirmation of your conspiracy beliefs.
Now go ahead and respond. And please tell me what you think happened that day. You conspiracy nuts are always slippery about what you actually believe. You spend your time arguing over nonsense and refuse to state what it is that you believe and then support it with evidence.
Did you notice how you got several likes from Ladybug. Did you notice she posted that she was going to read all the evidence that Oswald was the only shooter and there is no evidence of anyone else involved. Notice how quiet she has been. Does anyone think she will come back here and say she was mistaken and failed to read the evidence before now? Of course not. She will hold onto the LBJ theory and never post evidence supporting that theory.
I'd love to see a conspiracy nut in court, challenging a speeding ticket. You'd tell the judge that you didn't do it. The officer would state he clocked you on radar going over the speed limit and your response would be that you were someplace else that day. He'd have proof he took your drivers license and had you sign the ticket and you'd keep on saying that was someone else, you were home sick that day. The judge would roll his eyes and ask if that is your entire defense and you'd tell him, why yes sir, it must have been an imposter driving my car and using my drivers license. How do you argue with someone so completely out of their mind?
J
If I'm correct, you seem to say that you are putting all of your money or belief into the theory that acoustic evidence proves, or at least suggests that there was more than one shooter. Other than that acoustic evidence, you have nothing to
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Is the most info on the acoustic I posted corr ct? Yes or no?
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Is the most info on the acoustic I posted corr ct? Yes or no?
What did I tell you? You are totally predictable. Do you know what the words invalid mean? Let's not play games. The theory about acoustic evidence suggesting a second gunman is false. Move on. Say it is a false theory. Say it.
You absolutely do not want to state what you believe happened that day, do you? You can't defend it. You nuts are all identical. I printed proof that your theory is false and you return here to ask if most of your false theory is correct, yes or no? What is wrong with you? It was a motorcycle cops mic you were depending on to try to muddy the waters and suggest a crackling noise was a gunshot. All of that is invalidated and false. Even the motorcycle cop said so. It didn't fit what happened. The timing to the shooting was wrong. Just read the evidence and see for yourself. If you are seeking the truth, and you discover the truth is different than you once thought, that's ok, you can learn something here and move on. But you refuse to accept the truth and prefer to embrace the conspiracy lie.
Again, what do you think happened?
You absolutely do not want to state what you believe happened that day, do you? You can't defend it. You nuts are all identical. I printed proof that your theory is false and you return here to ask if most of your false theory is correct, yes or no? What is wrong with you? It was a motorcycle cops mic you were depending on to try to muddy the waters and suggest a crackling noise was a gunshot. All of that is invalidated and false. Even the motorcycle cop said so. It didn't fit what happened. The timing to the shooting was wrong. Just read the evidence and see for yourself. If you are seeking the truth, and you discover the truth is different than you once thought, that's ok, you can learn something here and move on. But you refuse to accept the truth and prefer to embrace the conspiracy lie.
Again, what do you think happened?
Last edited: