Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

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.

Clearly, you "dunno", BlackDog. But that has been apparent for some time.

There was ample evidence of both molten steel and molten iron, including the connection between the two, reported in the source I directed you to.

You either haven't read it or, alternately, your intent here is to illustrate that you really do lack the necessary understanding of the issues and the science surrounding 911 to engage in these discussions.

But don't let that discourage you. The issues are complex and the science is too. Keep at it.

There's a saying, that goes

People believe the official story because they don't know the official story.

Once people do learn the truth, they then really do understand.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Some very interesting poll results and other salient comments.

Everything below the line is from,

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-on-911-than-believe-the-governments-explanation.html

Feel free to add your own sources.

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

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), normal office fires caused the failure of a single column, starting a chain reaction that brought Building 7 down. More than 2,000 architects and engineers have signed the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition that questions NISTs explanation of the buildings collapse.

"Even the governments own computer model disproves its theory. It looks nothing like the actual collapse," said Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer from the Philadelphia area. "Not only that, they refuse to release the data that would allow us to verify their model. In the world of science, this is as bad as it gets. I'm glad most people can look at the collapse and see the obvious."

////////////

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the governments account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?

Among the polls findings:

38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;

46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7s collapse, only 19% know the buildings name;

After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:

46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who dont know; [in other words, more people think controlled demolition than believe the governments narrative]

By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

compared to 21% who oppose it.

I think we've seen some of that 21% here at MLW.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think we've seen some of that 21% here at MLW.

And waaay too much of the 41%. Ah but lots of folks are mesmerized by myths. Some times, with some people, it goes on for years.

[Je suis Omar]

And waaay too much of the 41%. Ah but lots of folks are mesmerized by myths. Some times, with some people, it goes on for years.

You come here, repeatedly make a fool of yourself, by failing to address the bogus issues you raise, you disappear then reappear to once again make a fool of yourself and on and on it goes.

Why are you so unwilling to discuss the science, OGFT?

It's down to 21% and shrinking. These are folks who haven't been exposed. You know the lies but still you frantically work to protect your right to maintain your ignorance.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

You come here, repeatedly make a fool of yourself, by failing to address the bogus issues you raise, you disappear then reappear to once again make a fool of yourself and on and on it goes.

Why are you so unwilling to discuss the science, OGFT?

Who's making a fool of themselves...The so called science you continually trot out is totally biased and serves only to keep the conspiracists flailing around incessantly. Aside from the technical discussion that is like a game of whack a mole, the logic seems to be conveniently dismissed by your ilk. But carry on, its entertaining if nothing else.

[Je suis Omar]

Who's making a fool of themselves...

You are the one who fled, OGFT. You are the one who is lost. You fled right after you were schooled on your "source".

Why do you keep coming back, waving your arms and screaming, "Look at me, I can't even discuss the science!!"

[On Guard for Thee]

You are the one who fled, OGFT. You are the one who is lost. You fled right after you were schooled on your "source".

Why do you keep coming back, waving your arms and screaming, "Look at me, I can't even discuss the science!!"

I believe the waving arms and screaming is your schtick actually. Fact of the matter is, it has all been gone through, ad nauseam, last time you tried to flog the old truther scenario. Of course the internet is replete with the same old junk that most of us have moved on from.

Here is a little of the logic for you.

http://www.openculture.com/2013/10/noam-chomsky-derides-911-truthers.html

Edited May 14, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Je suis Omar]

Of course the internet is replete with the same old junk that most of us have moved on from.

Such capital D Dishonesty. You were right in there pitching until you were schooled. Then you disappeared.

And you obviously haven't moved on. You just keep illustrating that you're not capable of taking any real substantial part except from where you have moved to take your seat in the peanut gallery.

[On Guard for Thee]

Such capital D Dishonesty. You were right in there pitching until you were schooled. Then you disappeared.

And you obviously haven't moved on. You just keep illustrating that you're not capable of taking any real substantial part except from where you have moved to take your seat in the peanut gallery.

I think we all know who hasnt moved from the peanut gallery. But lets not waste any more time with it.

[Je suis Omar]

The very same guy who can't discuss language or grammar issues either, but he makes himself out to be some grammar guru who takes money from unsuspecting folks.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

The very same guy who can't discuss language or grammar issues either, but he makes himself out to be some grammar guru who takes money from unsuspecting folks.

Yeah corrected a short essay just this afternoon. Re stocked the beer fridge quite nicely.

[Je suis Omar]

Yeah corrected a short essay just this afternoon. Re stocked the beer fridge quite nicely.

So take it over to the thread where these issues are being discussed and show us your language prowess.

[On Guard for Thee]

So take it over to the thread where these issues are being discussed and show us your language prowess.

OK, Ill give you my paypal account first then.

[Je suis Omar]

OK, Ill give you my paypal account first then.

No need, OGFT, you've illustrated many a time how you are a shyster and a fraud.

[On Guard for Thee]

No need, OGFT, you've illustrated many a time how you are a shyster and a fraud.

No grammar lessons for you.

[Je suis Omar]

No grammar lessons for you.

That would be because you are incapable of delivering.

[On Guard for Thee]

That would be because you are incapable of delivering.

If you say so. Now I think I will avail myself of one of those well earned, nicely cooled beers.

[Michael Hardner]

Some very interesting poll results and other salient comments.

Poll results = not science

[Michael Hardner]

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

I didn't feel uncomfortable. Attributing supposed motives as you're doing = not science.

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

I didn't read it.

They were found to exist at the WTC complex.

I think I read the article below. I will reply to that link.

[Michael Hardner]

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

The evidence consisted of 'physical evidence' and 'testimonial evidence'. I think the latter was adequately addressed by the NIST report, and I don't even know why a scientific article would use some witness' word choices to support the idea of molten steel. Doesn't seem scientific to me.

For 'physical evidence' - I spent over half an hour looking at a few of the papers, and found that it was difficult to find something that was rigorous. One paper I looked into hadn't been peer reviewed, others seemed more interesting, like the USGS study regarding " The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents ". But when I looked into it, alas, we were back in blogger land including this quote seemingly from Rich Lee who produced the report:

"“What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee”"

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/wtc-towers/nano-thermite/iron-rich-spheres/

I have looked into the science, and it's not leading to scientific reviews but instead leading to more blogs and so on. The NIST assertion that debris with aluminum was what was witnessed still seems credible to me, and wasn't debunked by the article.

Now I spent 40 minutes on this, so I'm done. It's been a long time since I spent this much time on this topic. If there was a weight of good science available on these topics, I expect that I would have found it by now. There doesn't seem to be any good scientific evidence supporting an explosion, then, do you know of any scientific evidence against an explosion ?

[Je suis Omar]

Michael Hardner: The NIST assertion that debris with aluminum was what was witnessed still seems credible to me, and wasn't debunked by the article.

What article, Michael? Why don't you bring that information forward.

See,

"Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead? What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?"

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/900-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

[Black Dog]

Clearly, you "dunno", BlackDog. But that has been apparent for some time.

There was ample evidence of both molten steel and molten iron, including the connection between the two, reported in the source I directed you to.

As I pointed out the source you provided claimed the existence of large pools of molten metal in the WTC basement but offered no scientific evidence of same. Did you read your own source or were you just mesmerized by the fancy words?

You either haven't read it or, alternately, your intent here is to illustrate that you really do lack the necessary understanding of the issues and the science surrounding 911 to engage in these discussions.

And your understanding consists of cut and paste jobs from conspiracy nut sites that don't even say what you claim they say.

Some very interesting poll results and other salient comments.

So about half as many Americans are skeptical of 9-11 as believe in angels.

"Liquid metal was seen pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse on September 11, 2001. Was it a combination of steel and iron, or was it aluminum and/or lead?

Explained by the NIST report.

What was the molten metal reported under the rubble of the Twin Towers at Ground Zero? And why is the identification of the molten metal important?"

Again: there's no scientific evidence of molten metal under the rubble. Why do you insist on making claims without scientific support?

[Je suis Omar]

The evidence consisted of 'physical evidence' and 'testimonial evidence'. I think the latter was adequately addressed by the NIST report, and I don't even know why a scientific article would use some witness' word choices to support the idea of molten steel. Doesn't seem scientific to me.

For 'physical evidence' - I spent over half an hour looking at a few of the papers, and found that it was difficult to find something that was rigorous. One paper I looked into hadn't been peer reviewed, others seemed more interesting, like the USGS study regarding " The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents ". But when I looked into it, alas, we were back in blogger land including this quote seemingly from Rich Lee who produced the report:

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/wtc-towers/nano-thermite/iron-rich-spheres/

I have looked into the science, and it's not leading to scientific reviews but instead leading to more blogs and so on. The NIST assertion that debris with aluminum was what was witnessed still seems credible to me, and wasn't debunked by the article.

Now I spent 40 minutes on this, so I'm done. It's been a long time since I spent this much time on this topic. If there was a weight of good science available on these topics, I expect that I would have found it by now. There doesn't seem to be any good scientific evidence supporting an explosion, then, do you know of any scientific evidence against an explosion ?

Why are you ignoring the pointed information from the Consensus that I posted?

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]

There also should not, could not be eutectic mixtures at the WTC complex. That is evidence of hi tech, military grade nanothermite. Which definitely should not be there.

[Michael Hardner]

What article, Michael? Why don't you bring that information forward.

This one:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24372-why-are-so-few-willing-to-discuss-the-science/page-32?p=1053850#entry1053850

I addressed already the problem with eyewitness accounts.