hot enough

Regarding the Molten/vaporized steel, there is so much evidence for it, from renowned experts in the field of metals, forensic science, ... that it is stunning that anyone, let alone a totally non-science guy like Omni would be so audacious as to attempt to deny it. [in the following article, bolding is mine] ========================================= Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Point TT-6: Buildings ... I. Physical Evidence I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13] Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said: http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Nice touch, that, the Orlando club thing. Very scientific like Omni's source. I quote, direct from the person, totally unidentified, Omni's "source". "But does this make us an authority? No." The anti-truthers desperation is palpable!

Omni has had the opportunity to address this for months now, Reg, and he fled from it and other questions that show the US conspiracy theory is totally bogus. You do understand that you believe in a conspiracy theory, the US government official conspiracy theory, don't you? And there has never been any evidence offered to support the US government official conspiracy theory since this thread was started on June 9! Don't you find that odd? There is no evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory, there's tons of propaganda, goofball movies, the usual US schtick that sheeple swallow with glee, but no evidence.

This is typical of anti-truther/science deniers' responses. It has no merit whatsoever. It has been shown to be fatuous, illogical, and not relevant to the events of 911. In short it's a shermerism.

Completely fatuous. There are myriad secrets that have been kept from the US people and even after they are discovered, they remain a secret to most "citizens", though hidden in plain sight. But forget all this anti-truther nonsense, this science denying BS, Reg, and focus on the myriad IMPOSSIBILITIES of the US government official conspiracy theory. Do you deny that nanothermite, a recently discovered US government/military high grade explosive was found in WTC dust, along with the by products of those nanothermite explosions? Do you deny the molten and vaporized steel found in large volumes at WTC?

"Right there", eh, Reg? 1. Do you think it misleading for the twin towers collapse sequence to be described by a "scientific" paper put out on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse? 2. You remember reading, Why no link to your "source"? 3. You remember reading a source that actually describes jet fuel's "ability to melt steel"? You do know that that is impossible, don't you, Reg?

Wait! If Hal was actually trying to offer something of merit as required by MLW guidelines he would have done so but instead he offers the same lame jokes/distractions/shermerisms that is the sum total of the anti-truthers/science deniers/supporters of the US conspiracy theory. Are the firemen in this video liars, Hal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=G1zED8dy63w

There are so many people that describe explosions on 911 both before and after the planes hit. Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the [WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times] Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor] Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]

People who know nothing about the events of 911 should refrain from offering uninformed and downright ignorant replies. The Pancake Collapse theory was long ago abandoned by everyone, including NIST. EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY! / MacQueen NYFD 9/11 witnesses

"... they found nanothermite, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on ... " Watch from 10:10 on. Easy to do in an elevator/insulation upgrade, where workers think they are spraying on insulation.

Did you watch the Jonathon Cole video I posted on the previous page of this thread? As he says, before we answer "why it was done/how it was done/who did it, we first need to know what IT is. If you watch it, you will easily be able to see the grand deception. Here's the link, below. Jonathan Cole - 9/11 Experiments: Eliminate the Impossible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGCWBDFZ5Zs

The seriousness, scope and scale of the alleged crime is just so audacious that I'm afraid you'll have to show me a level of widespread scientific consensus that is as clear as that upon which climate science rests. You need whistle-blowers on the scale of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden who are bearing the sort of evidence that truly grips the world's attention and that visibly shakes the government and the agencies it directed towards these ends to their cores. You need to explain the scientific impossibilities that make your concerns here appear, again, I apologize, completely vacuous. The US government conspiracy theory is audacious in its stupidity. Anyone who looks at the entire scheme with a critical eye can see how vacuous it is.

You really want to believe and you are willing to forsake, science, logic, your own eyes, your own brain, everything you've been taught but failed to learn, "If it disagrees with experiment it's wrong"!!! It's Finally Time to Wake Up to 9/11

Why do you keep on with your patent dishonesty, eyeball? I didn't think this was YOU. You keep flogging the whistle blowers nonsense and ignore the voluminous science. The science that shows clearly and unequivocally that the US official story is not possible. You cite Occam's razor, and it seems you don't even understand it. "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." Consider all the crazy, wild assumptions that make up the US official story that you are willing to accept without the least bit of critical thought. You read about lie after lie from the US government and its "scientists" and still you refuse to address the real science. The word escapes me or there isn't a word to describe this level of willful blindness. It's Orwellian!

This molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up is another of the myriad impossibilities found within the totally crazy US government official conspiracy theory. Still not a shred of evidence has been provided to support the US government official conspiracy theory.

John Gross and NIST lied about the molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up. It's bad enough to relentlessly troll, which is against MLW rules; it's another thing altogether to wantonly lie. ====================================================== Figure 3. A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F. NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible. Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails — as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals — because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire. Figure 4. Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points. Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity. Figure 5. The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight. NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air. NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do notmix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!" http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

John Gross and NIST lied about the molten steel seen flowing out of WTC2 minutes before it was blown up. NIST advanced a cockamamie unscientific idea, they were, again, asked to do a simple experiment [the foundation of science] by many scientists to back their notion and they failed to perform any experiment. NIST did this a number of times because they knew that any experiments would show their science was garbage. The science deniers here at MLW know this. That can only mean more lies. These science deniers are denying the picture they saw, in this thread, of John Gross touching the end of a previously molten/vaporized steel beam/column.

And what about question number 7?

To all the US government conspiracy theory supporters. Are these firemen lying about secondary explosions? Why is the blond fireman's face all bloody? Are all the other police, eye witnesses lying?

NIST followed a paper that was put out by Zdenek Bazant on September 13, 2001, two days after the collapse. This is the very antithesis of science. This ludicrous Crush Down/Crush Up theory, which is the sole basis for the US government official conspiracy theory goes against all of Newton's Laws of Motion. It describes a DOWN AND OUT motion that is not possible in a gravity collapse. Gravity collapses do not eject multi-ton sections of steel 300 yards laterally. Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 For those intellectual cowards who are too chicken to watch the video, Richard Feynman: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." NIST failed to perform all the crucial experiments they were encouraged to perform by scientists on both sides of the story. That is the antithesis of science, as Professor Feynman brilliantly but simply explains above.

You're not worth talking to because you are an anti-science, truths "put right in front of your face" denying/ignoring, you are even a god awful, terrible propagandist. There is so much science put forward and you and your cohorts ignore it all and write crap like the crap you have written above. You know the US government conspiracy theory is bogus and we know you know that because you never ever provide any evidence to support it nor have you ever provided any evidence to support any of your ludicrous notions.

How do believe all those totally impossible things occurred? Occam's razor sinks your contention. How could enough nanothermite going off to create all the molten/vaporized steel, all the pulverized concrete, the complete destruction of two 110 storey towers and one 47 storey tower, all the molten molybdenum, all the vaporized lead, all the 6% of WTC dust being intricately mixed with iron microspheres - the VERY by product of these nanothermite reactions, the sulfidation of the eutectic steel, ... all be done by "a small handful of people" salting the evidence? How did they get molten steel deep in the rubble piles, some found in Februrary 2002? I don't think you know what all these things listed above mean for your suggestion, and I don't mean to be unkind, is incredibly ludicrous. I have never said that. No one knows how or even what amounts of nanothermite was needed to blow up the towers. Science only says that controlled demolition is the only possible way that the towers could have come down as they did. The world's largest elevator retrofit ever went on at WTC before and right up to 911. Read on. ACE Elevator Company 9/11 Questions and Research How could explosives be planted in the WTC? Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends. Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports. Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project. Nor were the fireproofing workers. (See video) The words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either. If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in. The building owner is also key. The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor. http://911Experiments.com/reports. http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/ NIST is not flummoxed, they just flat out lied about all these things, categorically denying these myriad things that DO exist. There are myriad smoking guns/complete impossibilities that SINK the US government official conspiracy theory.

You make no sense, Omni. This isn't about me and it is testament to your abysmally weak anti-science position that you try to make it about me. The US government official conspiracy theory is one that any sane individual would not/could not believe in a million years, unless they deny reality. This same US government official conspiracy theory is so wacky, so outlandish, so cockamamie, so phantasmagorical and it has no science/zero science supporting it. There is a whole thread just for providing evidence for the US government official conspiracy theory and none has ever been provided. Only those who deny science support it.

There were voluminous reports of bombs and explosions on 911 from many different sources.

Is this a willful lie or simply your usual ignorance on the events of 911, Omni?