Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Black Dog]

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?

Responding to someone's question with a bunch of unrelated gobshite is not answering the question.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, why was there molten steel and iron ...

Where is the chemical analysis, temperature readings and so on ? A video doesn't cut it.

NIST addresses it here:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_faqs_082006.cfm

[Je suis Omar]

No chemical analysis is available.

Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC

Point TT-6: Buildings

<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

Introduction

According to the official account, the Twin Towers were brought down by airplane impacts and fire, and in the case of WTC 7, by fire alone. One implication of this account is that the destruction would have produced no molten steel or iron, which is produced when steel is melted by certain substances, such as thermite): Structural steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,482°C (2,700°F), and iron does not melt until it reaches 1,538°C (2,800°F).[1] The fires ignited by the plane crashes, even with the help of jet fuel, could not have been hotter than 1,000°C (1,832°F), meaning that they would have been at least 1000 degrees F. cooler than what would be necessary to melt steel/iron. The presence of molten steel or iron, therefore, would have implied that the building steel had been melted by something other than the airplane impacts and the resulting fires.

The Official Account

There is no evidence that any molten steel or iron was found in any of the WTC buildings.

The NIST report showed that the Twin Towers were brought down by the airplane impacts and the resulting fires, which were ignited by jet fuel.[2] WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.[3] There would, therefore, have been no reason for molten steel or iron to have been produced.[4]

Molten steel or iron was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report,[5] the NIST report about the Twin Towers,[6] or the NIST report about WTC 7.[7] This silence about molten steel or iron implies its absence.

The existence of molten steel (or iron) was inexplicitly denied by one of the authors of the NIST reports, engineer John L. Gross.[8] At a lecture at the University of Texas in October, 2006, Gross was asked a question about a pool of molten steel, to which he replied:

Lets go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody no eyewitnesses said so, nobodys produced it.[9]

In a post-report publication (September 2011), NIST wrote: NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yardsfound no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

Moreover, this report said:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

Finally, this report said:

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.[10]

In summary:

The NIST reports attributed the collapses to jet fueled fires, which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron.

There was no evidence for molten steel or iron, and there was no reason to expect it.

Even if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses.

The Best Evidence

Not one of those claims can be maintained:

1) The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called irrelevant, given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it. The only explanation NIST suggested was that, if there was molten steel or iron, it would have been due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile. But NIST claimed that the buildings were brought down by building fires, which at most could have reached 1,000°C (1,832°F.) So the idea that burning debris from these buildings could have reached anywhere close to the temperature needed to melt structural steel (1,482°C, 2,700°F),[11] without the help of explosive or incendiary material, is implausible.

It is also unscientific. Physicist Steven Jones has written: Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce large pools of molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal. The fact that the pools metal had an orange color was crucial, Jones explained, because something had raised the temperature of iron to more than 2,000°C [3,632°F).[12]

2) There were two types of evidence for molten steel or iron in the debris:

I. Physical evidence, which was presented in a 2002 report by FEMA and elsewhere.

II. Testimonial evidence from many credible witnesses, including firefighters and other professionals.

I. Physical Evidence

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]

SEE MORE, AS I KNOW YOU WILL, AT,

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

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

Then why your incredible reluctance to discuss the evidence, Michael?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Where is the chemical analysis, temperature readings and so on ? A video doesn't cut it.

NIST addresses it here:

[um[/url]

So go ahead and discuss it, Michael.

[Michael Hardner]

Then why your incredible reluctance to discuss the evidence, Michael?

I posted a link to the science. YouTube video isn't evidence of molten steel.

[Michael Hardner]

So go ahead and discuss it, Michael.

Yes, the NIST report addresses it.

[Je suis Omar]

The NIST never studied the collapse.

You're right. Isn't that thee most unscientific thing you've ever heard of? Talk about making gigantic assumptions!!! That's hardly scientific.

But someone as eminently qualified as you, BD, should know that.

The NIST also attributed the cause of the collapse to the the heat from the fires weakening the columns.

Yes, I'm well aware of what NIST did, the gigantic assumptions they made.

Three buildings, all on the same day, brought down by fire when no other country has ever been able to accomplish even one collapse, even after having fires burn for many more hours than the relatively small fires on 911.

This is obviously American exceptionalism at work.

[Je suis Omar]

Yes, the NIST report addresses it.

So go ahead and discuss it yourself, Michael.

What are you afraid of, Eyeball's observation?

Isn't that what the moderators want?

[Je suis Omar]

I posted a link to the science.

Which you are obviously reluctant to discuss.

YouTube video isn't evidence of molten steel.

That would be the same video evidence that NIST made use of, is it not?

[Je suis Omar]

Yes, the NIST report addresses it.

As did I, in the post three before this post of yours I've quoted.

Notice how I posted direct, focused discussion of the particular issue under discussion while you gave a link to a huge mishmash of matter totally unrelated to the issue at hand.

Was Eyeball accurate in an overall sense and also, prescient?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

You do tend to resort to insults when your repetitive claims get shot down, but we have been around this block before so nothing new here.

[Michael Hardner]

Which you are obviously reluctant to discuss.

No, as I said I read it and it seems good to me.

That would be the same video evidence that NIST made use of, is it not?

They didn't use it to prove that it wasn't molten steel. They noted the colour of the material.

[Je suis Omar]

You do tend to resort to insults when your repetitive claims get shot down, but we have been around this block before so nothing new here.

Go ahead and shoot this down, OGFT. Or should we just note that you already attempted to try that earlier in this thread, using a source you couldn't explain and that was out of date. And your silly notions about the molten metal being aluminum WERE shot down, in flames, ... big ones.

And neither you or Michael seem to be honest enough to inform BlackDog of that.

That's because your ideas of "discussing the science" include supporting those who bombard the thread with extraneous material to help obfuscate.

You probably don't even look at each other's posts. If you did, and if you possessed a scintilla of honesty you would have reminded BlackDog that we have been over this before and that you, OGFT, studiously ignored it after you quickly hit your self erected brick wall.

1) The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called irrelevant, given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it. The only explanation NIST suggested was that, if there was molten steel or iron, it would have been due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile. But NIST claimed that the buildings were brought down by building fires, which at most could have reached 1,000°C (1,832°F.) So the idea that burning debris from these buildings could have reached anywhere close to the temperature needed to melt structural steel (1,482°C, 2,700°F),[11] without the help of explosive or incendiary material, is implausible.

It is also unscientific. Physicist Steven Jones has written: Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged. Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce large pools of molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal. The fact that the pools metal had an orange color was crucial, Jones explained, because something had raised the temperature of iron to more than 2,000°C [3,632°F).[12]

Ibid

[Je suis Omar]

No, as I said I read it and it seems good to me.

They didn't use it to prove that it wasn't molten steel. They noted the colour of the material.

I see that we've once again arrived at the pulling teeth stage where you get all cagey with your responses, Michael.

And I reiterate,

Why are you so obviously reluctant to specifically discuss these issues?

[eyeball]

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

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.

Did you understand my response?

I think beating the drum for this secret inside job notion obfuscates and distracts from the more obvious things that need discussing and to such an extent that it begins to appear deliberate - it helps feed into a general narrative that describes any sort of opposition to our official position on what terror is or why it exists or how we respond to it etc is always a crackpot idea.

If it's not deliberate then it's idiocy by association at the very least which is just as bad given the abject ignorance and confusion that already exists. Quit adding to it already why don't you?

Edited May 13, 2015 by eyeball

[Je suis Omar]

No, as I said I read it and it seems good to me.

They didn't use it to prove that it wasn't molten steel. They noted the colour of the material.

To save you some embarrassment,

Did BlackDog's post contain the material from the morass of material you mistakenly wanted me to wade thru and find for you?

Didn't I just a short time ago, today, read a post of yours wherein you told someone it was their duty to provide from their source/their link?

[Black Dog]

You're right. Isn't that thee most unscientific thing you've ever heard of? Talk about making gigantic assumptions!!! That's hardly scientific.

Why is it unscientific? What assumptions were made? Be specific.

Yes, I'm well aware of what NIST did, the gigantic assumptions they made.

Again, what assumptions were made?

Three buildings, all on the same day, brought down by fire when no other country has ever been able to accomplish even one collapse, even after having fires burn for many more hours than the relatively small fires on 911.

This is obviously American exceptionalism at work.

No one has ever claimed the WTC were brought down by fire alone. To suggest that ignores important factors like, oh I dunno, the impact of two fully loaded 400,000 planes travelling at more than 500 miles an hour. It's a strawman.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are you so obviously reluctant to specifically discuss these issues?

I am discussing them. Isn't that obvious ? I posted the NIST assessment, and stated my opinion.

[Michael Hardner]

Didn't I just a short time ago, today, read a post of yours wherein you told someone it was their duty to provide from their source/their link?

Ah, ok. I see.

Here's the part that made sense to me:

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 and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) 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.

[Je suis Omar]

Did you understand my response?

I think beating the drum for this secret inside job notion obfuscates and distracts from the more obvious things that need discussing and to such an extent that it begins to appear deliberate - it helps feed into a general narrative that describes any sort of opposition to our official position on what terror is or why it exists or how we respond to it etc is always a crackpot idea.

If it's not deliberate then it's idiocy by association at the very least which is just as bad given the abject ignorance and confusion that already exists. Quit adding to it already why don't you?

I'm sorry but that is lunacy, Eyeball. You don't let folks who have no interest in discussing science knock people off open, free discussions on science. That is completely antithetical not only to freedom of speech but also to science.

You only have to note how frightened they become the more is the focus on the science.

You only have to note how they present volumes of everything under the Sun, except the science.

You only have to note their reliance on the official myths, where some out of ignorance, cling to them and others, less honest, keep throwing them up to divert the discussion.

There has been no scientific explanation from official sources for the presence of the molten steel and iron found at the WTC complex, except for one, the residue of thermitic material, which, I shouldn't have to explain, didn't/doesn't belong there.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

There has been no scientific explanation from official sources for the presence of the molten steel and iron found at the WTC complex, except for one, the residue of thermitic material, which, I shouldn't have to explain, didn't/doesn't belong there.

There's no scientific evidence of pools of molten steel in the complex.

[Je suis Omar]

Ah, ok. I see.

Here's the part that made sense to me:

Aaaaah, the part that BD did post and I referenced, which made you feel uncomfortable enough to pretend to come clean.

And what, you didn't read it, or you were just happy with the volume of distractions he was posting?

I know you've been lurking, so how have you missed it that OGFT tried this same NIST nonsense, again, old outdated material that has been addressed by scientists who showed that NIST's contentions were wrong. Many of NIST's contentions have been wrong and they have had to make retractions.

I provided, in this thread, not so many posts ago, scientific evidence that refuted NIST and OGFT. The latter disappeared. The thread went into a period of quiescence.

If you insist, I'll be more than happy to present that again.

But, now, how is it possible for the impossible to happen? There was no legimate, legal fuel source available at the WTC complex that would create molten steel or molten iron.

They were found to exist at the WTC complex. Is this another water into wine miracle?

That really would be American exceptionalism reaching a god like stage.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

Aaaaah, the part that BD did post and I referenced, which made you feel uncomfortable enough to pretend to come clean.

And what, you didn't read it, or you were just happy with the volume of distractions he was posting?

Given the volume of garbage you've been spewing in this thread, that's a laugh.

I know you've been lurking, so how have you missed it that OGFT tried this same NIST nonsense, again, old outdated material that has been addressed by scientists who showed that NIST's contentions were wrong. Many of NIST's contentions have been wrong and they have had to make retractions.

And yet you cited them (inaccurately, as it turns out) when it suited your purposes. Which specific parts of the NIST report were retracted?

But, now, how is it possible for the impossible to happen? There was no legimate, legal fuel source available at the WTC complex that would create molten steel or molten iron.

They were found to exist at the WTC complex. Is this another water into wine?

No they weren't.

[Je suis Omar]

There's no scientific evidence of pools of molten steel in the complex.

You might want to note that there aren't any folks leaping to support you, BlackDog.

I already provided proof of molten steel and molten iron at the WTC site and in the dust, at least twice.

Do any of you read anything at all? You seem to be cut from the same cloth as those of Intelligent Design.

Okay, one more time. Read it all, BlackDog, it presents both sides.

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

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

You might want to note that there aren't any folks leaping to support you, BlackDog.

I already provided proof of molten steel and molten iron at the WTC site and in the dust, at least twice.

Do any of you read anything at all? You seem to be cut from the same cloth as those of Intelligent Design.

Okay, one more time. Read it all, BlackDog, it presents both sides.

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

Interesting that a source that claims the existence of "large pools of molten metal" in the basement doesn't actually provide any scientific evidence of said pools. I dunno, but even to me there seems to be a pretty big difference between "large pools of molten metal" in the basement and microscopic "iron-rich spherical particles" in the air and whatnot.