posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:53 PM
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yeah, but only a few posts later in this thread, someone corrected you and said this was recording the temperatures of the surface of the building
itself, not the temperatures of the actual fire.
The camera will collect any radiation emitted in its direction as long as there is a clear path to the camera, and base its data on that radiation.
If you can see any fire in the actual camera shot (and I don't honestly remember it that well), then the temperatures/heat around that fire is going
to be about what the camera is telling you. Otherwise they would completely useless for collecting this data. We know steel wicks away heat, but
remember so does the atmosphere and smoke, which is something obvious that we often completely neglect to consider. The buildings were not airtight,
especially around the impacts, all the heat wasn't being trapped inside there. Why should it have been? The fires may have been hotter deeper
inside the buildings, where the camera couldn't see, but that's something different.
At any rate, NIST never found any evidence of temperatures or heating much higher than that anyway. At least nowhere near what would have been
required to reach the critical instability point that they had to keep elevating variables in their models to even achieve. In other words they came
up with a theoretical condition for instability which they claim is the collapse initiation, but they found no evidence at all that the conditions
required were actually met. No heating in samples above 250 C and no consistent application of heat to columns/trusses during the short amount of
time either building burned since the fires died down and flared up in different places for short lengths of time.
Just a friendly reminder that this is "bsbray11" talking to you, not "the truther movement." I got up by myself today and put my own clothes on,
too, thank you.
[edit on 23-9-2009 by bsbray11]