Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

Probably because the melting points of metals was already well known.

I think you may well be right. Doing tests to confirm hypotheses is the essence of science. Tests would have sunk NIST's boat. So they didn't do any tests.

Doesn't that illustrate that the NIST investigation was fraudulent?

[Je suis Omar]

"The intense fires, more than the impact, caused the towers to collapse. The intense fires melted the structural steel."

Newsweek Extra Edition

America Under Attack

Given this, it's certainly plausible that the molten metal was steel.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

"The intense fires, more than the impact, caused the towers to collapse. The intense fires melted the structural steel."

Newsweek Extra Edition

America Under Attack

Given this, it's certainly plausible that the molten metal was steel.

Steel doesnt have to even approach melting point to be weakened so as to fail. Of course when you carve a hole in the side of a building with a 767 and then add its AU weight to the floor loading, you can probably expect something might give.

[Je suis Omar]

Steel doesnt have to even approach melting point to be weakened so as to fail. Of course when you carve a hole in the side of a building with a 767 and then add its AU weight to the floor loading, you can probably expect something might give.

I didn't ask about weakened steel. Newsweek said that the intense fires melted the steel so that molten material could have been molten steel.

[On Guard for Thee]

I didn't ask about weakened steel. Newsweek said that the intense fires melted the steel so that molten material could have been molten steel.

Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, but it burns plenty hot enough to reduce steel to 50% or so less than its original strength. Thats all you need do to bring down a building of this type.

[Je suis Omar]

Jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, but it burns plenty hot enough to reduce steel to 50% or so less than its original strength. Thats all you need do to bring down a building of this type.

That would suggest that it is impossible for the flowing molten material to be molten steel.

[On Guard for Thee]

That would suggest that it is impossible for the flowing molten material to be molten steel.

Molten aluminum. We have already been through that.

[Je suis Omar]

Molten aluminum. We have already been through that.

But molten aluminum is silver. The material flowing from WTC2 was the wrong color.

[On Guard for Thee]

But molten aluminum is silver. The material flowing from WTC2 was the wrong color.

Thats because it became mixed with office stuff such as carpet, curtains, furniture, etc.

[Je suis Omar]

Thats because it became mixed with office stuff such as carpet, curtains, furniture, etc.

The important take away portion, OGFT, I've put in bold, though it is all important. It completely refutes the notion that the flowing metal was molten aluminum.

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 not mix 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!"

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

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, even if initially heated to the yellow-white temperature range in the crucible.

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 not mix 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/news-section/41-articles/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

Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Argus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Argus, but I believe you said at the beginning of this discussion that this stuff was beyond you.

Said no such thing. I said it generally bored me.

Where did you get your little idea? Is it your own or is it from an outside source?

I've been contacted by the Illuminati to shoot down your ideas in exchange for a small fee.

[Argus]

They said they can't say for sure it's aluminum and they also state that NIST can't either. I'm guessing that your contention is that two assumptions constitute science and that then becomes your proof allowing you to state categorically that it's molten aluminum.

They say they can't be sure beause it's not like anyone was close to it and took samples. Real scientists qualify their opinions in the way 911 conspiracy nuts never do. That's why they say they believe it's aluminum while you say it's definitely iron.

[Argus]

I didn't ask about weakened steel. Newsweek said that the intense fires melted the steel so that molten material could have been molten steel.

So because a magazine headline writer exaggerated that's evidence of a conspiracy?

[Je suis Omar]

So because a magazine headline writer exaggerated that's evidence of a conspiracy?

What is the name for this type of illogic?

[Argus]

The important take away portion, OGFT, I've put in bold, though it is all important. It completely refutes the notion

that the flowing metal was molten aluminum.

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 not mix 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!"

If he wanted to actually replicate what was seen he would have to know the composition of the organic materials. Which, of course, he could not know. Plus, he seems to be assuming the mixture was only 'organic material' whereas it was likely to also include other types of metal from the aircraft and building.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

What is the name for this type of illogic?

Sarcasm.

[Je suis Omar]

They say they can't be sure beause it's not like anyone was close to it and took samples. Real scientists qualify their opinions in the way 911 conspiracy nuts never do. That's why they say they believe it's aluminum while you say it's definitely iron.

Argus: What post proving it's not molten aluminum?! I didn't see no such post! It don't exist I tell you!!

[Argus]

Argus: What post proving it's not molten aluminum?! I didn't see no such post! It don't exist I tell you!!

No one needs to prove it wasn't aluminum. That is the accepted and logical answer. You need to prove it was iron, which you have not done.

[kimmy]

When he's not studying "nano thermite", Dr Stephen Jones is studying electronic perpetual motion machines and trying to prove that Jesus visited America.

He's almost as mental as that other hero of the Truthies, Jim Fetzer. Fetzer was once touted as a "theoretical physicist" by a former Truthie who used to post here, but these days he's he's writing at "Veterans Today" about how Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing and the moon landing are hoaxes, how Obama is planning martial law, and even how the Beatles actually replaced Paul McCartney with a look-alike in 1966.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

So because a magazine headline writer exaggerated that's evidence of a conspiracy?

Newsweek, no less...

[kimmy]

Please go ahead and explain, George, and we'll see.

What I find most perplexing about this thread is why this guy keeps referring to Dick as "George".

-k

[Je suis Omar]

If he wanted to actually replicate what was seen he would have to know the composition of the organic materials. Which, of course, he could not know.

But NIST did, and OGFT did and so did all the folks who said it wasn't molten steel/iron. They all described the organic materials. Odd that a fount of unbiased neutrality would miss that.

Any idea why the great bunch of scientists at NIST would not perform any simple experiments to substantiate any of their notions? That's what scientists do.

Edited April 3, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Michael Hardner]

When he's not studying "nano thermite", Dr Stephen Jones is studying electronic perpetual motion machines and trying to prove that Jesus visited America.

He's almost as mental as that other hero of the Truthies, Jim Fetzer. Fetzer was once touted as a "theoretical physicist" by a former Truthie who used to post here, but these days he's he's writing at "Veterans Today" about how Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing and the moon landing are hoaxes, how Obama is planning martial law, and even how the Beatles actually replaced Paul McCartney with a look-alike in 1966.

-k

And yet, our collective shame is that we love to discuss this craziness. Closing in on 20 pages...

[Michael Hardner]

What I find most perplexing about this thread is why this guy keeps referring to Dick as "George".

-k

Bush/Cheney = George/Dick

[kimmy]

And yet, our collective shame is that we love to discuss this craziness. Closing in on 20 pages...

The first great thread on this topic reached 200 pages, as I recall.

I would say it's less a question of discussing it, and more along the lines of poking it with a stick to see what happens next.

-k