Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

Je suis Omar · May 28, 2015

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

You are hilarious.

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.

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

The molten metal never appeared silvery. It stayed yellow white and yellow even after falling great distances. NIST acknowledged all this. NIST even acknowledged the "white smoke" but they avoided it. Avoidance of highly pertinent issues that have direct bearing on the very issues they were charged with investigating (that's humorous in and of itself) is not science.

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.

Can you point out where in the NIST report you found this bit of truthiness?

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.

That's just more truthiness.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 28, 2015

What is truthiness? Is it science?

Most assuredly it is not science. It is you, BD, in everyone of your posts here in this thread.

----------------------

Collins dictionary: truthiness (ˈtruːθɪˌnəs )

Definitions

noun

(informal) (of a belief, etc) the quality of being considered to be true because of what the believer wishes or feels, regardless of the facts

---------------------------

Are you really that uninformed that you aren't familiar with the noun 'truthiness' or is this just more of your truthiness?

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

I did read it, a number of times, and I thought about it, as opposed to you.

Now you explain it, IOW. Or any words except more truthiness.

You haven't read the link I provided, or if you have, you certainly haven't understood the concepts.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 30, 2015

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

That's not what your link says, BD. You post a letter from a highly dubious source and then expect people to trust you when you describe, without knowing, where it is from.

Je suis Omar · May 30, 2015

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

Now your link won't even work, BD. Are you Mr Metabunk? Could you bring up that quote from the RJ Lee website so you can do your "I thought you wanted to talked about the science and not the provenance of links".

Je suis Omar · June 1, 2015

WTC 7 THE THIRD SKYSCRAPER

1. OMISSION OF GIRDER STIFFENERS SHOWN ON FRANKEL DRAWING #9114

Technical Statement: NIST maintains that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire acting upon the 13th floor A2001 girder between columns 79 and 44 and the beams framing into it from the east. They said that the beams expanded by 5.5 (revised in June 2012 to 6.25), broke the girder erection bolts, and pushed this girder off its column 79 seat. This girder fell to floor 12, which then precipitated a cascade of floor failures from floor 12 down to floor 5, and column 79 then became unsupported laterally, causing it to buckle. It is then said that column 79's buckling caused the upper floors to cascade down, which started a chain reaction a north-to-south then east-to-west horizontal, progressive collapse with a global exterior collapse that was captured on the videos.

The first omission concerns flange-to-web stiffeners on the south end of the girder (A2001). See drawing 9114. These omitted stiffeners would prevent the girder flange from folding when the girder web moved beyond the seat, requiring twice the possible expansion of the beams framing into the girder from the east to move the girder far enough to the west for it to fall off its seat.

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/articles/2014/11/twenty-five-points-10-19-14-3.pdf

Edited June 1, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · June 1, 2015

John Gross, one of the lead investigators at NIST, lying about the molten steel that was found at the WTC site.

Eyes Wide Shut: Gross Negligence with NIST Denial of Molten Metal on 9/11 - AE911Truth.org

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Je suis Omar · June 3, 2015

I've already looked into it and it is at best a curiosity. If you want to be scientific, you would need uncontaminated evidence analyzed by multiple objective parties. Eyewitness accounts aren't enough to be "science".

How is an impossibility just a curiosity, Michael? It was impossible for there to be molten steel or molten iron there and yet there was! There was also vaporized lead, another impossibility and molten molybdenum, even a greater "impossibility"!

There was eutectic molten steel, yet another impossibility.

All these impossibilities and it doesn't raise your level of curiosity even a smidgen?

And how would you looking into matter?

Except as an individual capable of following a line of reason.

You said:

"I am not qualified to debunk scientific assertions, so I rely on trusted institutions to do so - keeping in mind that sometimes they are wrong, and even more often the assertions are not well founded."

How can you suggest that NIST is a trusted institution when it was an arm of the Bush-Cheney Department of Commerce? Are you familiar with, "conflict of interest" and "justice must not only be done, it must appear to be done"?

How can you suggest that NIST is a trusted institution when John Gross so blatantly lied when asked about the molten metal found at the WTC sites? His entire demeanour was that of a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · June 11, 2015

Wait... you're going to go with 'witnessed' molten steel ? How do you identify the temperature ?So much for science...

You don't do science, Michael, not a once in this whole thread. But you have gone to extraordinary lengths to divert attention away from the science. How come?

Here's a picture of John Gross, you know who he is, with some of the molten steel, that he specifically denied ever being in evidence.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-wtc7-6/

Edited June 11, 2015 by Je suis Omar

GostHacked · June 11, 2015

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.

Listen for once. I am actually trying to help you out here. I've been through this routine here a few times already, so I thought I would try and save you a headache or two. By not replying to everything does not mean I am ignoring what you post. As I said, I've already been down this road.

So I again suggest watching the video and I guarantee you will not be wasting your time. It should actually help your argument.

Je suis Omar · June 12, 2015

Why the big mystery, GH? It was over an hour long, wasn't it?

Why don't you just describe what is so special about it. Or at least point to the pertinent section.

Have you noticed how no one is willing to discuss the science?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · June 12, 2015

Wait... you're going to go with 'witnessed' molten steel ? How do you identify the temperature ?

There's no need to measure the temperature. If it's molten, it's above the temperatures that could have come from the hydrocarbon/organic fuels that were available.

That means a fuel source that was not legitimate. That means the official story is bunk, a bunch of silly government conspiracy nonsense.

So much for science...

Yeah right, science!

How come no one has been willing to discuss the science?

PIK · June 12, 2015

Watching a show on 9/11 and it showed firemen that were working near #7 and one kept looking up at it and was asked why and guess what the fireman said, this building will probably come down to do with all the shock. And guess what, it did.

Je suis Omar · June 12, 2015

Watching a show on 9/11 and it showed firemen that were working near #7 and one kept looking up at it and was asked why and guess what the fireman said, this building will probably come down to do with all the shock. And guess what, it did.

That's wonderful science, PIK. Keep up the good work.

A lot of money could have been saved with this one fireman instead of all those NIST "scientists".

GostHacked · June 13, 2015

Watching a show on 9/11 and it showed firemen that were working near #7 and one kept looking up at it and was asked why and guess what the fireman said, this building will probably come down to do with all the shock. And guess what, it did.

I recall with clarity when I was watching CNN when they reported that building 7 was going to come down. It was stated as a fact, not as a 'maybe'. I watched it live on CNN when it did come down. They could not predict the other two buildings coming down, how did they manage to predict this?

Michael Hardner · June 13, 2015

I guess you'd have to ask them. Maybe they saw buckling or some signs of stress on the building. Anyway, they were right and it did fall. The alternate solution was that the fireman had some other information.

GostHacked · June 16, 2015

I guess you'd have to ask them. Maybe they saw buckling or some signs of stress on the building. Anyway, they were right and it did fall. The alternate solution was that the fireman had some other information.

No one expected the twin towers to fall, but they expected #7 to come down? All while 5 and 6 had to be taken down later, even though they both received way more damage than #7. How did it fall? And how do other buildings fall when they have been structurally compromised?

Michael Hardner · June 16, 2015

No one expected the twin towers to fall, but they expected #7 to come down?

I don't think you can say that nobody expected the twin towers to fall, on the day of.

How did it fall? And how do other buildings fall when they have been structurally compromised?

I think the report said that it was the fires. In any case, if it's a curiosity it's still a light-years leap to think there was something nefarious behind it. The strategy, the project plan for something like that just doesn't add up.

poochy · June 16, 2015

So has this guy finally given us his manifesto about who is to blame? Or are you all still playing the waiting game?

On Guard for Thee · June 17, 2015

So has this guy finally given us his manifesto about who is to blame? Or are you all still playing the waiting game?

You may be. I think most of the rest have moved on.

Edited June 17, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

GostHacked · June 17, 2015

I don't think you can say that nobody expected the twin towers to fall, on the day of.

I think the report said that it was the fires. In any case, if it's a curiosity it's still a light-years leap to think there was something nefarious behind it. The strategy, the project plan for something like that just doesn't add up.

According to the designers, the towers were able to sustain multiple hits from aircraft smaller than the 737.

Did they simply focus on the fires as being the sole reason for the collapse? Those fires could not have gotten that hot as most of the fuel burned off on the impact of each aircraft. The wings carry most of the fuel. The impact got through the outside mesh, but not so sure that it got to the core. The aluminum aircraft was shredded by the iron exoskeleton of the building.

poochy · June 17, 2015

You may be. I think most of the rest have moved on.

Yea, hey if you feel the need to make a snide remark could you try a little harder to at least make it entertaining, and perhaps do it in the spirit of what I wrote, maybe you're feeling a bit hard done by, but that's no excuse for this sort of lazy drive by, even you can do better.

On Guard for Thee · June 17, 2015

Yea, hey if you feel the need to make a snide remark could you try a little harder to at least make it entertaining, and perhaps do it in the spirit of what I wrote, maybe you're feeling a bit hard done by, but that's no excuse for this sort of lazy drive by, even you can do better.

Why would I try to make it entertaining just to point out this concept has been flogged to death. What is the most entertaining is the theories the truthers try to put forward.

GostHacked · June 17, 2015

Why would I try to make it entertaining just to point out this concept has been flogged to death. What is the most entertaining is the theories the truthers try to put forward.

Only took a couple hours after the towers were hit that the name Osama Bin Laden came up. The same name that came up a couple months before in a presidents daily briefing which was ignored for whatever reason.

But then again we can talk about the truths that got the USA into Iraq soon after. Lies upon lies it seems.

Michael Hardner · June 17, 2015

Did they simply focus on the fires as being the sole reason for the collapse?

Well, they started with the fires and the evidence showed that there was a lot of fuel and the fire burned hot enough for their to be visible buckling of the towers' infrastructure. The fuel didn't disappear, it burned and the effects were obvious.

The alternate theories didn't start to develop right away - the NIST investigation eventually had to catch up with them years later and address them. They wouldn't have occurred to investigators because they came out of the imaginations of people who were trying to come up with them.

Michael Hardner · June 17, 2015

Only took a couple hours after the towers were hit that the name Osama Bin Laden came up. The same name that came up a couple months before in a presidents daily briefing which was ignored for whatever reason.

But then again we can talk about the truths that got the USA into Iraq soon after. Lies upon lies it seems.

They had the names of the highjackers, so it would be easy to follow those to Al Quaida - they could have already had those links on file.

As for the lies regarding Iraq, you can note how easy it was to make something up to get popular support for an invasion. Since Reagan the American presence has been willing to put itself into action around the world, and it isn't necessary to destroy one's one symbols of power to do so.