Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

Derek: 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:

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

Since you are the scientist, I'll defer to your expertise. You don't need bright colors and big pictures. Words will suffice.

[Je suis Omar]

Derek: 1) Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire.... 2) from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft),

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

Re1): Really, Derek, did you even click on the link. There they discussed the WTC towers, which can hardly be considered "conventional building fires".

Re 2): How did the scientist miss the section MARKED "THE AIRLINE IMPACT" and the subsequent discussion?

This is what you government false narrative folks like to do to create the false impression that you are willing to consider the science. You won't even read things that you feel might be cognitively dissonant to your blind views.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

Derek: 1) Your cited source speaks to a conventional building fire.... 2) from your quoted passage, there is no mention of the tons of aluminium introduced (from the aircraft),

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

Re1): Really, Derek, did you even click on the link. There they discussed the WTC towers, which can hardly be considered "conventional building fires".

Re 2): How did the scientist miss the section MARKED "THE AIRLINE IMPACT" and the subsequent discussion?

This is what you government false narrative folks like to do to create the false impression that you are willing to consider the science. You won't even read things that you feel might be cognitively dissonant to your blind views.

I happened to be sitting in an airliner myself alongside rwy 24 L back when AF 358 ran off the end of the runway and into a ravine. Luckily no one was killed. After it came to rest the fire started almost immediately near the tail and essentially the whole fuselage burned except for a little bit of the tail and a little bit of the cockpit. Surprisingly enough the only thing that didnt burn were the wings, which is where the fuel is. Do you and yours suggest the airplane had been pre loaded with thermite in order for it to burn...There is a picture of the post crash plane in one of the posts I put here, but of course a truther wouldnt bother to look too deep into something that thwarts their heresy.

[Boges]

A 26 page, and counting, thread about 911 Trutherism in less than a week.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922215052/creepypasta/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg

[On Guard for Thee]

A 26 page, and counting, thread about 911 Trutherism in less than a week.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120922215052/creepypasta/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg

Maybe stick to the sport channel.

[Je suis Omar]

I happened to be sitting in an airliner myself alongside rwy 24 L back when AF 358 ran off the end of the runway and into a ravine. Luckily no one was killed. After it came to rest the fire started almost immediately near the tail and essentially the whole fuselage burned except for a little bit of .

OGFT: Oh look a squirrel! Look, there's another one and another one. Look Boges, look.

Boges: Yup, I see 'em. There's some more over there.

[On Guard for Thee]

OGFT: Oh look a squirrel! Look, there's another one and another one. Look Boges, look.

Boges: Yup, I see 'em. There's some more over there.

You should take a rest. What I am hearing here is squirrellY.

[Je suis Omar]

You should take a rest. What I am hearing here is squirrellY.

Yet another of many, OGFT avoidance posts.

How did it come to be that there was molten steel in WTC7, OGFT, when there was, purportedly, no fuel available to melt that steel?

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

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

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 FEMAs 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:

teel which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon called a eutectic reaction occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Stating that the New York Times called these findings perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation, the article added:

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges which are curled like a paper scroll have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes some larger than a silver dollar let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending but not holes.[15]

In discussing the deepest mystery, the New York Times story said: The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.[16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F).[17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].[18]

Edited April 6, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Derek 2.0]

Derek: 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:

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

Since you are the scientist, I'll defer to your expertise. You don't need bright colors and big pictures. Words will suffice.

So you acknowledge that if the conditions present allowed thermite to ignite, with thermite being comprised of oxidized iron and aluminum, resulting in a lethal fire and explosion that weakened the structural integrity of the WTC, resulting in it's collapse.

If so, I trust you'll acknowledge that the same conditions were also present to weaken and cause a class D metal fire, resulting in an extremely hot and explosive fire, comprising structural iron I-beams and aircraft grade aluminum, that would weaken said building integrity........

[Derek 2.0]

This is what you government false narrative folks like to do to create the false impression that you are willing to consider the science. You won't even read things that you feel might be cognitively dissonant to your blind views.

Right, but the Shinola you're shoveling is both adolescent and contradictory......

Omar: There is no way a thermal metal fire, comprised of iron and aluminum, happened...the condition weren't right and nobody saw a giant sparkler in the fire.......it had to be thermite, a composition of iron and aluminum, which results in a large thermal metal fire........the Bush administration/ZOGs/illuminati/Freemasons/NWO/CIA/Koch Brothers brought down the WTC clearly

Derek: I thought you wanted to talk about the "science".......do you see the holes in your argument, holes large enough to fly a hijacked 767 through?

[Derek 2.0]

Yet another of many, OGFT avoidance posts.

How did it come to be that there was molten steel in WTC7, OGFT, when there was, purportedly, no fuel available to melt that steel?

You mean the building next to WTC 1, sheathed in aluminium cladding, damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, and allowed to burn for nearly eight hours, sans attention from fire fighters and with fire sprinklers without any water in them........that building 7?

[Derek 2.0]

-dp-

Edited April 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Je suis Omar]

So you acknowledge that if the conditions present allowed thermite to ignite, with thermite being comprised of oxidized iron and aluminum, resulting in a lethal fire and explosion that weakened the structural integrity of the WTC, resulting in it's collapse.

If so, I trust you'll acknowledge that the same conditions were also present to weaken and cause a class D metal fire, resulting in an extremely hot and explosive fire, comprising structural iron I-beams and aircraft grade aluminum, that would weaken said building integrity........

There isn't a thinking person alive who would agree with the nonsense that you have been trying, are here trying to pass off as science, Derek.

"If ... COULD ...". There is no one trying to advance this BS and you know its BS. Why did you wait so long to bring up this "explosive evidence". No need to reply. We all know why. Not even the official government folks, NIST, agree with this nonsense that you are advancing. You don't quote anything pertinent because it's all make believe.

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

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air, and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes, since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

...

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)depending on the particular alloywell below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

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

Your posts were childish, what with the big pictures and all, not at all what one would expect of a body with a university degree.

[Je suis Omar]

Right, but the Shinola you're shoveling is both adolescent and contradictory......

Omar: There is no way a thermal metal fire, comprised of iron and aluminum, happened...the condition weren't right and nobody saw a giant sparkler in the fire.......it had to be thermite, a composition of iron and aluminum, which results in a large thermal metal fire........the Bush administration/ZOGs/illuminati/Freemasons/NWO/CIA/Koch Brothers brought down the WTC clearly

Derek: I thought you wanted to talk about the "science".......do you see the holes in your argument, holes large enough to fly a hijacked 767 through?

Highly illustrative of your "scientific approach", Derek.

[jbg]

There isn't a thinking person alive who would agree with the nonsense that you have been trying, are here trying to pass off as science, Derek.

At least Derek has the patience to wade through this. Maybe his hip boots go very high.

[Derek 2.0]

There isn't a thinking person alive who would agree with the nonsense that you have been trying, are here trying to pass off as science, Derek.

"If ... COULD ...". There is no one trying to advance this BS and you know its BS. Why did you wait so long to bring up this "explosive evidence". No need to reply. We all know why. Not even the official government folks, NIST, agree with this nonsense that you are advancing. You don't quote anything pertinent because it's all make believe.

The only nonsense is the stuff you're regurgitating........You're clearly stating a compound (thermite) of iron and aluminum brought the towers down, but a combination of structural red iron and aircraft grade aluminium couldn't have brought the towers down.........

That's truly laughable, doubly so that you don't recognize the contradiction in your wild claim.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air, and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes, since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

At what point did the thermite ignite........and how?

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)depending on the particular alloywell below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Clearly a cover-up right?

But you still cling to the thermite cover-up right?

As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

So thermite yes, tons of red iron and aircraft grade aluminium, resulting in a class D metal fire, no.

Your posts were childish, what with the big pictures and all, not at all what one would expect of a body with a university degree.

So who brought the Towers down and why? Humor me.......

[Derek 2.0]

Highly illustrative of your "scientific approach", Derek.

I still await your scientific approach.......odd that once the crazy theories, coined by others (not yourself), are proven false, you launch into personal attacks......Though I'll acknowledge your yeoman's service in repeating the crazy claims of others, I think to have an actual scientific discussion on this topic, we'd require those who actually came up with the inane theories to defend them further......

[Derek 2.0]

At least Derek has the patience to wade through this. Maybe his hip boots go very high.

I have children, likewise, at times, I'll converse with the folks found outside stores, coffee shops, McDonalds and gas stations (prior to giving them change), that have put an effort into creating an interesting narrative penned across a chunk of cardboard box.......Likewise, I enjoyed the Fisher King, William's best performance in my mind.

[Je suis Omar]

At least Derek has the patience to wade through this. Maybe his hip boots go very high.

Stop trolling, jbg. If you are too frightened to address my responses to you, you have no business in an adult forum.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

I have children, likewise, at times, I'll converse with the folks found outside stores, coffee shops, McDonalds and gas stations (prior to giving them change), that have put an effort into creating an interesting narrative penned across a chunk of cardboard box.......Likewise, I enjoyed the Fisher King, William's best performance in my mind.

Good on ya for hanging in, while most of us have just walked away. Im sure you are aware of the junk science that is provided by, and available to, the truthers. You could be playing whack a mo for ever.

[Je suis Omar]

You mean the building next to WTC 1, sheathed in aluminium cladding, damaged by the collapse of WTC 1, and allowed to burn for nearly eight hours, sans attention from fire fighters and with fire sprinklers without any water in them........that building 7?

No, not the one that "was next to WTC1"; that one only exists for those engaged in obfuscation. I mean the WTC7 that was 123 yards away from WTC1. No it wasn't allowed to burn for nearly 8 hours. You really should consider checking the facts.

The one that had scattered fires on just a few floors. Fires that were not at all like all the other truly serious raging fires in steel framed buildings around the world that never caused any global collapse.

How did it come to be that there were examples of molten steel found in WTC7, Derek, when there was, purportedly, no fuel available to melt that steel?

Edited April 7, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Derek 2.0]

No, not the one that "was next to WTC1"; that one didn't exist. I mean the WTC7 that was 123 yards away from WTC1. No it wasn't allowed to burn for nearly 8 hours. You really should consider checking the facts.

The one that had scattered fires on just a few floors. Fires that were not at all like all the other truly serious raging fires in steel framed buildings around the world that never caused any global collapse.

How did it come to be that there was molten steel in WTC7, Derek, when there was, purportedly, no fuel available to melt that steel?

Ahh, that building 7.......the one, like I said, that was damaged during the initial attack, then further damaged once WTC1 collapsed, and was on fire for eight hours, without respite from fire fighters nor fire sprinklers

What makes you think the steel melted prior to the building collapsing, and not in the fires within the rubble, in the hours, days and weeks after the attack false flag?

Are you suggesting thermite in WTC 7 too? If so, I'll retort with much the same, structural material iron/steel, combined with oxidizing aluminium (from exterior cladding and other building material), buried under tons of rubble, further heated by the rubble from 1 WTC.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[On Guard for Thee]

Yep, no significant fire in #7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Ahh, that building 7.......the one, like I said, that was damaged during the initial attack, then further damaged once WTC1 collapsed, and was on fire for eight hours, without respite from fire fighters nor fire sprinklers

Yep...that one...for which your summary is consistent with the updated (2011) NIST report.

The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[Rue]

Poochy that was a brilliant attempt at communications but of course some people are only interested in hearing their own voice.

I personally believe shoving one's head up their buttox is an interesting yoga exercise, but it limits one's perspective

Likewise I believe anyone who calls advancing a conspiracy theory is a science is engaging in yoga.

Just for your interest I subscribe to the belief that we create conspiracies to fill the void of not being able to know. Conspiracy theories are religion. They do the same thing. They provide a set of rules that connect the dots and make what otherwise is understandable or random appear controlled and explainable. It gives the person who believes the conspiracy a sense of feeling they know...they now understand what others can not....they see the God mere mortals can not.

I think most of us are probably aware that an attack was suspected for months, but knowing excactly, when, where and how extensive it would be was not necessarily fully known. Likewise with the sheer number of intelligence gathering agencies in the different military branches, federal and state police and security agencies that lack of coordination may have had a lot to do with the ability to keep people guessing.

The government has too many layers, departments, agencies, most acting in secret and unaccountable to each other and so its a recipe for chaos. Then when such an act occurs, the disjointed nature of these organizations causes them to scramble and panic trying to figure things out and engage in a coordinated response.

On the other hand we also see that we are learning from the above and that exchanging intelligence and coordinating responses in well thought out plans have to be worked on. On a much lower scale, we saw, it may be impossible to prevent some attacks but coordinated rapid response can quickly contain it.

I think conspiracy theories create a pristine government, full of geniuses committing elaborate lies and falsehoods when in fact its just panicked bureaucrats trying to cover their ass and protect their jobs after they screwed up.

Have a nice day. I am off to a secret meeting with some shape shifting dracos from the illuminati. They are looking for a good dentist.

Edited April 7, 2015 by Rue