Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

Why would somebody blow up buildings that planes were already going to fly into ? That seems needlessly complicated, risky, and pointless. Really, it's a weird and silly idea that doesn't achieve any end at all.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the conspiracy team to just hijack the planes and crash them ?

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron in the three buildings when there was no fuel source that could have created molten steel and iron?

[Michael Hardner]

What we would really like to know, Michael, is why are so few willing to discuss the science?

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.

Nobody is discussing only the science.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron in the three buildings when there was no fuel source that could have created molten steel and iron?

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".

[eyeball]

What we would really like to know, Michael, is why are so few willing to discuss the science?

Because doing so makes them look idiotic.

[Je suis Omar]

No they werent designed for that scenario. Planes within a TRSA are limited to 250 knots. Of course the hijackers may have ignored certain air regulations as they hurtled toward Allah.

As is usually the case, you sure did ignore a lot, OGFT. And to boot, the quoted material indicates that you have been lying.

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But, he says, The building structure would still be there. [sEATTLE TIMES, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling#a022793skilling

Bolding is mine. Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

That's probably as thorough a discussion, on the science, from the government conspiracy crew as we have to date seen.

That's an odd way to address the fact that the official source you cling to doesn't say what you say they say. I'll also note the NIST also said this:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

WHOOPS

9. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

OOOF.

15. Since the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit) and the temperature of a jet fuel fire does not exceed 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit), how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

WELP.

[On Guard for Thee]

As is usually the case, you sure did ignore a lot, OGFT. And to boot, the quoted material indicates that you have been lying.

Bolding is mine.

And Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer who worked on the towers design confirmed what I am saying. And as MH pointed out, if you had the buildings already wired, how why would you go about getting some whackos to fly planes into them. But I guess that would take the fun out of being a tin hat guy.

[Je suis Omar]

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".

You obviously haven't looked into it enough. Did you read Eyeball's response?

There was molten steel flowing from WTC 2 minutes before the collapse.

There was molten iron sphericals found in WTC dust by USGS, RJ Lee Group, numerous scientists, but not by NIST, because they refused to look for it, despite it being found by these "multiple objective parties"!

From RJ Lee Group website: "At RJ Lee Group, we believe that science speaks for itself. We just give it a confident voice."

There are myriad photographs of WTC molten steel available for anyone willing to look into it.

There is FEMA describing the instance of eutectic molten steel.

There is Jonathon Barnett, (part of FEMA team ??) describing eutectic moten steel, which, curiously, in what people suggest was a normal situation, with normally available fuels, was an complete impossibility.

There are numerous witnesses, recorded with video and audio, describing seeing molten metal.

You know what is truly curious. It's how incurious are those who pretend they have looked into this. It's oh so curious how so so many are not only unwilling to look at the science, these people use actively underhanded, dishonest actions in order to obfuscate things.

People like Popular Mechanics, even NOVA, National Geographic, and of course the media tool, the history channel.

Why not discuss things openly and honestly? Isn't that what science is all about?

[Black Dog]

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron in the three buildings when there was no fuel source that could have created molten steel and iron?

I noticed you didn't answer Michael's question.

[Black Dog]

You obviously haven't looked into it enough. Did you read Eyeball's response?

There was molten steel flowing from WTC 2 minutes before the collapse.

NIST reported (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, as well as NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

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 alloy—well 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.

[Black Dog]

As is usually the case, you sure did ignore a lot, OGFT. And to boot, the quoted material indicates that you have been lying.

Bolding is mine.

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the PANYNJ indicated that the impact of a [single] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces

BTW, this is the NIST again, basically rebutting every single truther conspiracy theory in one handy place.

[Michael Hardner]

BTW, this is the NIST again, basically rebutting every single truther conspiracy theory in one handy place.

Wow, so somebody IS interested in discussing the science.

[Je suis Omar]

And Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer who worked on the towers design confirmed what I am saying. And as MH pointed out, if you had the buildings already wired, how why would you go about getting some whackos to fly planes into them. But I guess that would take the fun out of being a tin hat guy.

Seeing as we have seen, just how poorly you understand these issues, how you have illustrated, from your own (rarely) supplied sources, that you don't grasp the ideas, and further, that you are hopelessly behind the times, it's clear that your disjointed, confused posts on this issue are about as close to science as your nonexistent posts discussing language science.

[Je suis Omar]

Wow, so somebody IS interested in discussing the science.

Yes, Michael, but obviously not the guy who has "looked into it".

Referring back to my last post to you, there were a number of science issues that you haven't addressed?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

Seeing as we have seen, just how poorly you understand these issues, how you have illustrated, from your own (rarely) supplied sources, that you don't grasp the ideas, and further, that you are hopelessly behind the times, it's clear that your disjointed, confused posts on this issue are about as close to science as your nonexistent posts discussing language science.

I noticed you didn't answer the question here either.

Do you have an answer that isn't a "god-in-the-gaps" argument?

[Michael Hardner]

You obviously haven't looked into it enough.

Why do you say that ?

There was molten steel flowing from WTC 2 minutes before the collapse.

because they refused to look for it

Sorry, you're not talking about the science here.

There are myriad photographs of WTC molten steel available for anyone willing to look into it.

No chemical analysis is available.

You know what is truly curious. It's how incurious are those who pretend they have looked into this.

I have been curious, and I looked into many many claims. Each one ended up either having an understandable explanation, or an inconclusive result. I'm not curious enough to look into every claim that every single person could imagine.

Also, it helps to not just think about the science. That is because the science can be inconclusive, or difficult to resolve. If we understand that a complicated conspiracy doesn't make any sense, then we can save ourselves the effort of thinking about every possible reason.

Why not discuss things openly and honestly? Isn't that what science is all about?

No, science is about having evidence discussed, not just imagined evidence.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, Michael, but obviously not the guy who has "looked into it".

Referring back to my last post to you, there were a number of science issues that you haven't addressed?

NIST looked into it. If you want to imagine them to be a diabolical conspiracy tool then how is THAT science ?

You haven't addressed the non-science issues.

[Je suis Omar]

I noticed you didn't answer the question here either.

Science requires a degree of clear and concise language.There was no question in your quote, not even a question mark.

[Je suis Omar]

NIST looked into it. If you want to imagine them to be a diabolical conspiracy tool then how is THAT science ?

If you want to assert crazy assumptions, Micheal, designed to divert attention from pointed questions asked of you, from issues that you initiated, that is your province.

You haven't addressed the non-science issues.

May I ask, would a moderator not consider that thread drift?

[Black Dog]

Science requires a degree of clear and concise language.There was no question in your quote, not even a question mark.

I didn't ask any question. Others did, though, and you failed to respond.

Why would somebody blow up buildings that planes were already going to fly into ? That seems needlessly complicated, risky, and pointless. Really, it's a weird and silly idea that doesn't achieve any end at all.

Wouldn't it make more sense for the conspiracy team to just hijack the planes and crash them ?

Your responses:

What we would really like to know, Michael, is why are so few willing to discuss the science?

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron in the three buildings when there was no fuel source that could have created molten steel and iron?

Why not answer the question?

[Je suis Omar]

Why do you say that ?

Sorry, you're not talking about the science here.

WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

I didn't ask any question. Others did, though, and you failed to respond.

Exactly, hence my pointed response to you. Which I must reiterate. You are all over the map, BD. Your lack of focus needs attention. Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Why not answer the question?

Because the question, below, was asked of Michael. Your comprehension skills also seem to require some attention.

Je suis Omar, on 13 May 2015 - 11:12 AM, said:

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron in the three buildings when there was no fuel source that could have created molten steel and iron?

[Black Dog]

Exactly, hence my pointed response to you. Which I must reiterate. You are all over the map, BD. Your lack of focus needs attention.

I'm not really all over the map. I've asked why you won't/can't answer MH's question and I've posted a link from a source you have cited that debunks most of your claims. I'm a veritable model of focus and concision here. You, on other hand, are squirming all over the place.

[Michael Hardner]

If you want to assert crazy assumptions, Micheal, designed to divert attention from pointed questions asked of you, from issues that you initiated, that is your province.

No, I'm talking about the science. NIST looked into these claims. A youtube clip doesn't allow for chemical analysis, or anything like that.