Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

And you call that informative...ho ho ho.

Clearly your best science yet, OGFT. And your focus, pointedly away from the science, amazing.

[Argus]

You are wasting your time.The internet is full of crap science for those who want to try to make up a conspiracy where none exists. You did your best,but its all been done before. Might I suggest finding a new conspiracy to persue.

And that's the problem. The internet IS full of crap science, but none of it gets peer reviewed. Instead it's foisted off onto a credulous audience of people who really have no ability to determine whether it's right or filled with flaws.

[On Guard for Thee]

And that's the problem. The internet IS full of crap science, but none of it gets peer reviewed. Instead it's foisted off onto a credulous audience of people who really have no ability to determine whether it's right or filled with flaws.

Which is what makes it such a waste of time to try and dissuade a dyed in the wool WTC conspiracy theorist. Each time the fallacy of one argument is pointed out, they simply reach into the internet for another.

[Je suis Omar]

And that's the problem. The internet IS full of crap science, but none of it gets peer reviewed. Instead it's foisted off onto a credulous audience of people who really have no ability to determine whether it's right or filled with flaws.

A meme chucker appears.

OGFT is too afraid to describe the credentials of his outdated source. He's too afraid to address the out of date information on his outdated source.

He's too afraid to address the science of Mark Basile, a chemical engineer who has spent his life doing research on precisely these things. He did the tests, following the same rigorous scientific protocols that he has followed for all his other work. He found unreacted Thermate particles in two samples of WTC dust.

He found molten iron spheres, which he correctly noted, should not be there.

He described how the USGS also found these iron sphericals.

He described how FEMA found examples of molten iron in WTC steel.

He described how numerous scientists also found examples of molten steel in WTC steel.

Yet a lead investigator for NIST, John Gross lied, and said he knew of no one who saw/witnessed molten steel.

It's telling that one sample of WTC DUST came from a museum that didn't want to be identified just now.

What has this purportedly open society come to? Where is this much vaunted notion that free and open discussions wherein all possibilities are freely discussed is what we are? Such notions are laughable.

Your contributions are completely devoid of anything approaching science and for good reason - you stated that you aren't capable of discussing the science because it's beyond you. Then you have gone to extraordinary lengths to illustrate that to us.

Jonathon Cole, PE, has performed many test that have shown that the official story, as it relates to the destruction of WTCs12&7, is false.

But no one wants to discuss The Great Thermate Debate, or the science of the 2300 architects, engineers and scientists of AE911 Truth. Science, I must remind you, that was published in scientific peer reviewed journals.

Compare that to your "science", to OGFT's, to Kimmy's, Michael's, Bush_Cheney's (LOL).

Derek is at least in there pitching. We'll see if he's ready to keep doing what science demands, test and retest, form new hypotheses, and test to see if they match established principles. Test some more, raise concerns then address those concerns with science and above all, experimentation.

Why couldn't the scientists of NIST perform scientific experiments, particularly after they promised to do so?

When you can come up with something more than obfuscation, diversion and repeating fictions, feel free to discuss, Argus. Until then, feel free to keep embarrassing yourself.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Derek 2.0]

blah blah blah

I thought you wanted to discuss the science?

Your regurgitated quote doesn't address the points made in regards to the effects of a both super hot and explosive fire caused by a thermal-aluminum fire.........instead refers back to "building fire", a fire that is fueled by building materials alone.

[Derek 2.0]

Derek is at least in there pitching. We'll see if he's ready to keep doing what science demands, test and retest, form new hypotheses, and test to see if they match established principles. Test some more, raise concerns then address those concerns with science and above all, experimentation.

The effects of metal and alloy fires are not hypotheses, but scientific fact...........There is no need to be an engineer (which I am), nor have a background in maritime aviation (which I also have), but simply a rudimentary understanding of various fire types......which could be simply gleamed by a person that's a member of a volunteer fire department or has been through a naval damage control course (What every 17 year old naval trainee goes through).......

At this point, you require a hypotheses that outlines why a thermal-aluminum fire, a fire that is both super heated and explosive when contrasted to your conventional building fire, didn't occur in the WTC attacks and didn't result in disaster...if you want to further this discussion on science.

[GostHacked]

I wonder, were any of those helicopter pilots and passengers called to testify anywhere; were they questioned, were they identified?

Those are questions I do not have answers for.

[Derek 2.0]

And that's the problem. The internet IS full of crap science, but none of it gets peer reviewed. Instead it's foisted off onto a credulous audience of people who really have no ability to determine whether it's right or filled with flaws.

Added to the inability of deduction.............That some believe the Bush Administration was capable of devising, planning and carrying out such a plan, after only being in Office for half a year, then keeping it under wraps so long is amazing......furthermore, the very same Bush administration, if capable of fulling such a complex attack, was then unable to "plant" several shipping containers full of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq........

[GostHacked]

Added to the inability of deduction.............That some believe the Bush Administration was capable of devising, planning and carrying out such a plan, after only being in Office for half a year, then keeping it under wraps so long is amazing......furthermore, the very same Bush administration, if capable of fulling such a complex attack, was then unable to "plant" several shipping containers full of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq........

I do suggest watching the video I posted some pages back. I bet you will find more questions than answers.

[Je suis Omar]

I thought you wanted to discuss the science?

Omar: I do.

I'm sure you'll agree that quoting me as "blah blah blah" isn't the best way to illustrate that you want to discuss the science.

I'm sure you'll also agree that your obvious reluctance to address that same question to countless others who only want to engage in diversionary tactics is the best way to illustrate that you want to discuss the science.

Derek: Your regurgitated quote doesn't address the points made in regards to the effects of a both super hot and explosive fire caused by a thermal-aluminum fire.........instead refers back to "building fire", a fire that is fueled by building materials alone.

What my quote shows is that according to Thomas Eager, super hot fires, not a very accurate description for a scientist to be using, didn't exist.

NIST agreed.

Now if all of a sudden, out of the blue, you come up with a new theory, don't you think it is incumbent upon you, as a scientist, to do some experiments to prove what you are saying is true.

Note, I'm not stating you are wrong, unlike every other person who has come on this thread, with the exception of GostHacked, yelling and screaming I am wrong when it's not even my science I'm advancing.

I must say that your lack of equanimity doesn't do anything to help you advance your position that you are a scientist.

I can't refute your comments nor can I readily discuss them without researching and studying the sources that you, as a scientist, failed to cite.

Let's look at the video again to see if there were any "super hot fires".

The theories that you have advanced don't do anything to explain the molten steel found in WTC7. The molten steel that FEMA found and described, the molten iron found by the RJ Lee group, the USGS, Mark Basile, Steven Jones et al, ... .

Edited April 5, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

A little science about thermite.

http://planet.infowars.com/science/911-nano-thermite-debunked

[Derek 2.0]

What my quote shows is that according to Thomas Eager, super hot fires, not a very accurate description for a scientist to be using, didn't exist.

NIST agreed.

Now if all of a sudden, out of the blue, you come up with a new theory, don't you think it is incumbent upon you, as a scientist, to do some experiments to prove what you are saying is true.

Note, I'm not stating you are wrong, unlike every other person who has come on this thread, with the exception of GostHacked, yelling and screaming I am wrong when it's not even my science I'm advancing.

Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire........from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft), nor the proven effects of metal fires.........likewise his mention of black smoke during the onset of the fire, but his failure to mention grey smoke as the fire progressed, an indication of a metal fire.....

Do you deny that tons of aluminum were introduced? Likewise, do you deny the effects of metal fires? To add, why does the NIST no longer allow the use of aluminium wiring in the construction of homes/buildings?

If you don't refute that the fires in the the twin towers were subjected to aircraft grade aluminum, resulting in large metal fires , then what would you suggest mitigated these known results lending the fires to that of a more conventional "building fire" as you cited?

In effect, you must disprove natural science to further your claim..........

I must say that your lack of equanimity doesn't do anything to help you advance your position that you are a scientist.

I can't refute your comments nor can I readily discuss them without researching and studying the sources that you, as a scientist, failed to cite.

I'm very calm.....my sources are natural science, an understanding that you should have from high school level chemistry.........

Do you put aluminum foil into your microwave? If not, why?

Let's look at the video again to see if there were any "super hot fires".

The theories that you have advanced don't do anything to explain the molten steel found in WTC7. The molten steel that FEMA found and described, the molten iron found by the RJ Lee group, the USGS, Mark Basile, Steven Jones et al, ... .

Aluminum will burn at over 3800 degrees Celsius, which is why it's used in rocket fuel, steel melts at just over 1300 degrees Celsius......... simple enough?

[Derek 2.0]

A little science about thermite.

http://planet.infowars.com/science/911-nano-thermite-debunked

Thermite is comprised of aluminum........as are Boeing 767s.......

[On Guard for Thee]

Thermite is comprised of aluminum........as are Boeing 767s.......

Yep lots of aluminum, about a hundred tons of it less the engines which are a bit more exoctic stuff.

[Je suis Omar]

Derek: Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire........from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft),

Omar: Perhaps if you had read the original source ... .

"Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot."

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

[jbg]

Maybe we need a combined "conspiracies" and "gender issues" sub-forum. Both types of topics seem to end up being discussed in the same manner.

How about creating an overall subforum for those that are not mentally balanced?

[jbg]

What is the name for this type of illogic?

Twenty six pages of 15 posts each? Are you denying the video footage of the plane crashing into the second building? Of the crashing of the plane into the Pennsylvania field?

What is the purpose of people like you and others like you illogically stirring every pot?

[Derek 2.0]

Derek: Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire........from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft),

Omar: Perhaps if you had read the original source ... .

Right, I didn't you read all of your posts, nor all of your links

"Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot."

And those special conditions would be what? Also if "special conditions" are required, why is aluminium wiring no longer used in construction?

None the less, did you not suggest thermite as the possible cause? If so, and we're in agreement that thermite's main ingredient is aluminum, and there were "special conditions" present to ignite thermite, would not there also be present the "special conditions" to ignite the tons of aluminium from the 767?

It appears your sources contradict?

Likewise your linked claim of a "giant sparkler" being visible through dense smoke..............again, a pictorial reference to HMS Sheffield:

Yet no "giant sparklers", despite the ship suffering from a aluminum fire attributed to its construction.........so what "special conditions" were present on the Sheffield, but not at the WTC.....but were present enough to indicate thermite?

[Je suis Omar]

Je suis Omar had written: Let's look at the video again to see if there were any "super hot fires".

The theories that you have advanced don't do anything to explain the molten steel found in WTC7. The molten steel that FEMA found and described, the molten iron found by the RJ Lee group, the USGS, Mark Basile, Steven Jones et al, ... .

Derek had replied: Aluminum will burn at over 3800 degrees Celsius, which is why it's used in rocket fuel, steel melts at just over 1300 degrees Celsius......... simple enough?

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

The exchange that we had, copied above, leads me to suspect that you could well be misrepresenting your position and your qualifications. Talk about a lack of focus, Derek.

You completely ignored all the questions I posed to you because you knew you couldn't answer them.

I repeat: The theories that you have advanced don't do anything to explain the molten steel found in WTC7. The molten steel that FEMA found and described, the molten iron found by the RJ Lee group, the USGS, Mark Basile, Steven Jones et al, ... .

Also the residue of nanothermites found in WTC dust and the carbon nanotubes found in first responders lungs. None of these things should have been present at the WTC complex.

[On Guard for Thee]

None of these things were present at the WTC complex.

[Je suis Omar]

None of these things were present at the WTC complex.

Science requires that one be specific, that one doesn't engage in deception and obfuscation. You have yet to satisfy these important aspects, OGFT. You engage in diversion and obfuscation so damn close to 100% of the time that the odd time you don't isn't worth mentioning.

[On Guard for Thee]

Science requires that one be specific, that one doesn't engage in deception and obfuscation. You have yet to satisfy these important aspects, OGFT. You engage in diversion and obfuscation so damn close to 100% of the time that the odd time you don't isn't worth mentioning.

Quite a common trait among the truthers, they only accept the so called science that suits prolonging their nonsense. In that regard, you are certainly holding up your end. Good boy.

[Derek 2.0]

The exchange that we had, copied above, leads me to suspect that you could well be misrepresenting your position and your qualifications. Talk about a lack of focus, Derek.

You completely ignored all the questions I posed to you because you knew you couldn't answer them.

No, I answered your questions, just not to your predetermined result........now, when will you answer my questions?

I repeat: The theories that you have advanced don't do anything to explain the molten steel found in WTC7. The molten steel that FEMA found and described, the molten iron found by the RJ Lee group, the USGS, Mark Basile, Steven Jones et al,

I did answer your question......

Also the residue of nanothermites found in WTC dust and the carbon nanotubes found in first responders lungs. None of these things should have been present at the WTC complex.

And where would the nano-thermites have come from? Again, what is the chemical composition of thermite?

Could you produce thermite from oxidized metal and pulverized aluminum, ignited by heat? Simple question......could:

combined with pulverized material from this:

be ignited by this:

Simple question, based on the science that you desire to discuss......

[Je suis Omar]

Twenty six pages of 15 posts each? Are you denying the video footage of the plane crashing into the second building? Of the crashing of the plane into the Pennsylvania field?

What is the purpose of people like you and others like you illogically stirring every pot?

The same incredible focus exhibited by Kimmy, Argus, George, ... . Is Kimmy sick today? Are you the new meme generator designate?

[bush_cheney2004]

More applied science from a 2007 tanker truck fire....cue Truther denials in three....two...one

.....Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air in the 3:45 a.m. crash. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 above to buckle, and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, said Will Kempton, director of the California Department of Transportation.