Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[On Guard for Thee]

It is just filming the event. It's worth a view, maybe two. Like I said, most of the other 9-11 movies are garbage and speculation. Since you put so much time into this thread, it would be worth it to spend the time watching the film. I won't point out the important parts as they are quite evident when you watch it.

I suspect if it doesnt support the conspiracy theory idea its of no interest to a certain poster, science or not.

[Je suis Omar]

Again: in order to scientifically prove the NIST hypothesis that the stream was molten aluminum was incorrect, one would have to have performed an analysis of the material in question. Was such an analysis performed? If so, by whom? Where are the results of their study and the subsequent peer review?

Are you speaking about NIST, supposedly a scientific body, (but which was actually an arm of the Bush/Cheney government) the one that has refused to provide its "science" for peer review?

The architects and engineers of AE911Truth put their science, their experiments forward, the ones that show not only that NIST is wrong but also the NOVAs, the nonsensical crap of Popular Mechanics, the ... are, have also been spectacularly wrong.

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.

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

You drone on and on about "peer review", but NIST has steadfastly refused to allow peer review. That's what one would expect in a totalitarian regime.

Why are you so big on peer review and then you fail to note how NIST won't allow peer review? That's not science, from you [ ROTFLMAO ] or NIST.

You drone on and on about science and experimentation, but NIST failed to do these incredibly simple experiments to defend their silly "molten aluminum" notion, experiments that high school students could do, precisely because they knew the implications and going there would completely blow apart their many years of planned, careful deception.

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.

Ibid

BlackDog: Without a proper scientific analysis of a sample of the material, it's impossible to say definitively one way or another what it was. As such, molten aluminum cannot be ruled out.

Which "debunking" website have you taken this meme from? It is impossible for the molten metal seen flowing from WTC 2 to be aluminum.

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.

Ibid

BlackDog: Neither, I suppose, could molten iron, steel, adamantium, or unobtanium. It would certainly not be very scientific to make any categorical pronouncements one way or another.

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.

Ibid

Back to square one. As has been explained above, but it obviously needs repeating.

It is impossible for it to have been molten aluminum because the yellow white colors of the molten material, clearly illustrates that temperatures were reached in limited locales that were above and beyond the temperatures that are possible from jet fuel/office contents fires.

The jet fuel/office contents fires were nowhere near hot enough to have melted steel/iron. This is something that everyone is agreed upon.

Yet we have numerous examples of molten steel and molten iron at the WTC site post 9-11.

The disconnect from reality is truly amazing.

[Je suis Omar]

I suspect if it doesnt support the conspiracy theory idea its of no interest to a certain poster, science or not.

How many posts are we at now, OGFT, where you have offered nothing remotely approaching science? That would be from your first posting on this thread.

You made a big pretence that you were doing "science", but it became evident you were not, when you fled when it was pointed out how terrible your "source" was.

From this last post of yours, or any post of yours, do point out your science.

[Je suis Omar]

It is just filming the event. It's worth a view, maybe two. Like I said, most of the other 9-11 movies are garbage and speculation. Since you put so much time into this thread, it would be worth it to spend the time watching the film. I won't point out the important parts as they are quite evident when you watch it.

But this one point, the issue of the molten steel/iron, is not garbage and speculation. Yet you go back into, bring up, garbage and speculation, instead of addressing the impossibility of molten steel/iron at the WTC site.

You also ignore the boiling/vaporization of lead and the melting of molybdenum, both of which require much higher temperatures than the melting of steel.

[On Guard for Thee]

How many posts are we at now, OGFT, where you have offered nothing remotely approaching science? That would be from your first posting on this thread.

You made a big pretence that you were doing "science", but it became evident you were not, when you fled when it was pointed out how terrible your "source" was.

From this last post of yours, or any post of yours, do point out your science.

Its quite clear you only want to hear about science that supports your truther nonsense. When presented with actual science that refutes it, you start with the silly attempts to just get insulting. You are on your own pal.

[Black Dog]

Are you speaking about NIST, supposedly a scientific body, (but which was actually an arm of the Bush/Cheney government) the one that has refused to provide its "science" for peer review?

The architects and engineers of AE911Truth put their science, their experiments forward, the ones that show not only that NIST is wrong but also the NOVAs, the nonsensical crap of Popular Mechanics, the ... are, have also been spectacularly wrong.

As I said: AE911blah blah blah didn't perform any tests on the material coming from the towers. Nor did they provide any actual evidence as to the presence of molten metal beneath the wreckage. I also note you ignored the RJ Lee statement on the "iron microspheres" thing. Are we just pretending that was never part of your spiel now?

You drone on and on about "peer review", but NIST has steadfastly refused to allow peer review. That's what one would expect in a totalitarian regime.

Why are you so big on peer review and then you fail to note how NIST won't allow peer review? That's not science, from you [ ROTFLMAO ] or NIST.

You drone on and on about science and experimentation, but NIST failed to do these incredibly simple experiments to defend their silly "molten aluminum" notion, experiments that high school students could do, precisely because they knew the implications and going there would completely blow apart their many years of planned, careful deception.

This is a red herring. What the NIST did or did not do isn't relevant. You're just deflecting.

AE911 and Steven Lee did not perform any analysis of the molten material, nor have they produced scientific evidence of the presence of molten iron or steel. AE911 looked at some photos and a couple of eyewitness statements. Steven Jones performed some experiments on some samples of uncertain providence with no clear chain of custody and pure aluminum (which would definitely not have been present).

You keep on insisting people talk about science. How about presenting some actual science, then?

Which "debunking" website have you taken this meme from? It is impossible for the molten metal seen flowing from WTC 2 to be aluminum.

In order to scientifically determine what that stuff is or is not, you have to examine it, not look at a picture of it, a picture that can be easily manipulated with standard desktop software.

It is impossible for it to have been molten aluminum because the yellow white colors of the molten material, clearly illustrates that temperatures were reached in limited locales that were above and beyond the temperatures that are possible from jet fuel/office contents fires.

As I said. It may not have been molten aluminum. But we don't know if it was molten iron or steel either. This is a simple, undeniable fact.

[Je suis Omar]

Here's what the RJ Lee group (you know who they are) had to say about those microspheres:

Your source isn't from the RJ Lee Group, BlackDog.

[Black Dog]

Your source isn't from the RJ Lee Group, BlackDog.

Are you saying it's fake?

[Je suis Omar]

BlackDog: this is a red herring. What the NIST did or did not do isn't relevant. You're just deflecting.

NIST was the body charged with investigating. Simple scientific experiments that elementary school students, with supervision, could do. But not all the "scientists" at NIST.

[Black Dog]

NIST was the body charged with investigating. Simple scientific experiments that elementary school students, with supervision, could do. But not all the "scientists" at NIST.

Even if true, it's completely irrelevant.

What experiments were they supposed to do that they failed to do?

Edited May 28, 2015 by Black Dog

[Je suis Omar]

Are you saying it's fake?

Your reading comprehension skills need a degree of work, BD.

[Black Dog]

Your reading comprehension skills need a degree of work, BD.

So if the letter I posted (on RJ Lee letterhead, with Rich Lee's name on it) wasn't from RJ Lee, where is it from?

[Je suis Omar]

Even if true, it's completely irrelevant.

What experiments were they supposed to do that they failed to do?

No, it's both true and highly relevant. NIST puts forward specious nonsense that even folks that aren't scientists know and understand. Their specious nonsense is refuted with simple scientific experiments that evidently were beyond their capabilities and all this August body can do is stonewall and lie.

[Black Dog]

No, it's both true and highly relevant. NIST puts forward specious nonsense that even folks that aren't scientists know and understand. Their specious nonsense is refuted with simple scientific experiments that evidently were beyond their capabilities and all this August body can do is stonewall and lie.

What experiments were they supposed to do that they failed to do?

[Je suis Omar]

So if the letter I posted (on RJ Lee letterhead, with Rich Lee's name on it) wasn't from RJ Lee, where is it from?

As I have mentioned, which needs to be reiterated, "Your reading comprehension skills need a degree of work, BD".

You tell me where it's from. It's your post.

[Black Dog]

As I have mentioned, which needs to be reiterated, "Your reading comprehension skills need a degree of work, BD".

You tell me where it's from. It's your post.

I thought you wanted to talked about the science and not the provenance of links. Why won't you discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

What experiments were they supposed to do that they failed to do?

You are avoiding, in the same studious fashion as NIST, the issue under discussion. The color of the molten metal indicates temperatures beyond those from jet fuel/office contents. You agree, Michael agrees, NIST agrees, everyone agrees.

NIST didn't work under the highly disceptive notions that you are desperately now including. NIST described their reasoning for the molten metal, it was proven wrong with simple science experiments that you keep insisting are beyond the "scientists" at NIST.

It was not molten aluminum. It was not something that could logically or legitimately be there, following the completely unproven official conspiracy theory.

[Je suis Omar]

I thought you wanted to talked about the science and not the provenance of links. Why won't you discuss the science?

As I have mentioned, which needs to be reiterated, yet again, "Your reading comprehension skills need more a degree of work, BD".

You tell me where it's from. It's your post.

Or you could provide some more truthiness.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

You are avoiding, in the same studious fashion as NIST, the issue under discussion.

Quite the contrary.

The color of the molten metal indicates temperatures beyond those from jet fuel/office contents. You agree, Michael agrees, NIST agrees, everyone agrees.

I don't agree. I quite clearly say such a determination cannot be made from looking at a photograph or video.

NIST didn't work under the highly disceptive notions that you are desperately now including. NIST described their reasoning for the molten metal, it was proven wrong with simple science experiments that you keep insisting are beyond the "scientists" at NIST.

Again: what simple science experiments? Melting some aluminum down isn't a science experiment.

It was not molten aluminum. It was not something that could logically or legitimately be there, following the completely unproven official conspiracy theory.

You keep banging out this like a zen koan despite the flaws in your reasoning I have been pointing out throughout this exchange. You continue to fail to address those basic issues. What's your agenda? Why won't you discuss the science?

[Black Dog]

As I have mentioned, which needs to be reiterated, yet again, "Your reading comprehension skills need more a degree of work, BD".

You tell me where it's from. It's your post.

Or you could provide some more truthiness.

It's from the RJ Lee group. As I originally indicated. As it says on the letterhead.

[Je suis Omar]

It's from the RJ Lee group. As I originally indicated. As it says on the letterhead.

BlackDog, as is his wont, opts for truthiness.

[Je suis Omar]

Here's what the RJ Lee group (you know who they are) had to say about those microspheres:

IOW: there's nothing unusual about the presence of such particles in WTC dust. If anything, it'd be weirder if they weren't there.

Go ahead and explain your notion.

[Black Dog]

BlackDog, as is his wont, opts for truthiness.

Sure.

Go ahead and explain your notion.

Huh? What notion?

[Je suis Omar]

Sure.

Huh? What notion?

More truthiness.

This notion:

BD: IOW: there's nothing unusual about the presence of such particles in WTC dust. If anything, it'd be weirder if they weren't there.

[Black Dog]

More truthiness.

What is truthiness? Is it science?

This notion:

BD: IOW: there's nothing unusual about the presence of such particles in WTC dust. If anything, it'd be weirder if they weren't there.

That's easily explained if you bother to read the RJ Lee letter.