Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

Michael Hardner · May 14, 2015

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

Did you respond to me with that ? I spent 40 minutes addressing the post you put on the previous pages.

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.

I don't know what this means. It wasn't in the article you posted.

Edited to add: I mean, that word. The article talked about a newspaper article, but I looked at the studies. I also didn't include 'blogs' on their own. 45 minutes should be enough to find some solid science to raise significant doubt, but it wasn't there for me.

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

BlackDog: Explained by the NIST report.

Scientists don't/can't simply explain away things they don't want to face up to. NIST performed no tests to "explain" their contention.

Whereas other scientists have. That is what scientists do. Scientists asked NIST to perform experiments, but NIST failed to do so. Easy to perform experiments NIST failed to do. That's not science.

he National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) did document the flow of molten metal pouring out of the South Tower during the final seven minutes before its collapse, noting the accompanying "unusual bright flame" and "plume of white smoke." However, NIST failed to investigate the phenomenon, dismissing it as molten aluminum from the crashed jet, which melts at only 660°C/1220°F.

NIST's hypothesis may seem plausible at first. But Dr. Steven Jones demonstrates in his 2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" that the official government hypothesis is untested and implausible.

Dr. Jones' paper reveals that the initial bright yellow-white glow of the expelled liquid was consistent with a glowing stream of molten iron from "a nearby thermite reaction zone," and the expected white smoke (aluminum oxide off-gassing) supports that conclusion. NIST must rely on its claim of molten aluminum in order to validate its official fire-based explanation, because office fires cannot generate the extreme temperature required to melt steel or iron. The fundamental flaw of the aluminum hypothesis, though, is that the implied temperature of the white glow remains above 1200°C/2200°F, regardless of the metal involved. An independent researcher suggested that the molten substance could be lead from storage batteries, but this explanation fails as do all hypotheses based on alternative metals because the temperature required for the yellow-white glow of the metal is beyond the capability of the building fire.

Figure 4. Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions, even if initially heated to the yellow-white temperature range in the crucible.

Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals lead, for example which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

Figure 5. The liquid metal cannot be aluminum, for it remains orange-yellow, despite falling several hundred feet in broad daylight. NIST states that aluminum "can display an orange glow" if blended with organic materials, but Dr. Jones has experimentally invalidated this theory by demonstrating that organics and molten aluminum do not mix.

Thus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air.

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do not mix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/899-what-was-the-molten-metal-seen-pouring-out-of-the-south-tower-minutes-before-its-collapse-steel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

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.

You are likely reading the post, two below this one of yours I'm quoting that refutes NIST's untested hypothesis.

Michael Hardner · May 14, 2015

Posts are ok, but as you say we need science. Dr Jones' ideas are interesting and need peer review.

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

Scientists don't/can't simply explain away things they don't want to face up to. NIST performed no tests to "explain" their contention.

Whereas other scientists have. That is what scientists do. Scientists asked NIST to perform experiments, but NIST failed to do so. Easy to perform experiments NIST failed to do. That's not science.

How are they supposed to test the liquid that was coming from the WTC? You'd need to perform an analysis of an actual sample, which would obviously be impossible. So even if the aluminum hypothesis is not correct, the "molten iron" theory is just as untested and, when coupled with the "thermite" theory, even more implausible, hinging as it does on the existence of a massive and unproven conspiracy.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Black Dog

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

Posts are ok, but as you say we need science. Dr Jones' ideas are interesting and need peer review.

NIST didn't do science. They have refused to provide their data for peer review. Is that science?

Why does Dr Jones's findings, backed up by experiment, need peer review but NIST's explanations, not backed up by experiments, or for that matter, by scientific principles, doesn't need peer review?

They failed to do the easy experiments that could have cleared up their "explanation". An explanation, I have to add, one of many, that were not backed up by science, ie. experimentation, and yet these have resulted in many (see BlackDog, OGFT, you and how many millions of others) simply believing NIST and referring others to them as the experts.

Experts, scientists, don't refuse or fail to do easy to perform experiments to validate their theories. That simply is not science. It is the exact opposite of science. Science is all about experiments. Experiments are the essence of science.

As things now stand, we have molten steel pouring from WTC2, when, and this is crucial, by everyone's admission, NIST included, there was no fuel source available that could have melted steel.

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

NIST didn't do science. They have refused to provide their data for peer review. Is that science?

Why does Dr Jones's findings, backed up by experiment, need peer review but NIST's explanations, not backed up by experiments, or for that matter, by scientific principles, doesn't need peer review?

Again: Jones didn't analyze the flow from WTC2. He's got nothing but a photo to go on. That's not science.

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

How are they supposed to test the liquid that was coming from the WTC? You'd need to perform an analysis of an actual sample, which would obviously be impossible.

It didn't seem to bother you one bit advancing NIST's unproven assertion, BlackDog. How many people have you mislead with your ignorance (non pejorative sense) ?

How many people has NIST misled. These are the scientists who were tasked with looking at the evidence, doing what scientists are supposed to do, ie. not avoid uncomfortable truths, not dance around potentially damaging results, but to do what RJ Lee Group says scientists should do,

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

You remember them, don't you?

o even if the aluminum hypothesis is not correct, the "molten iron" theory is just as untested and,

No, that is false. I'm going to ask you to do something that you have so far shown a marked reluctance to do. That is think. After that let's discuss it.

when coupled with the "thermite" theory, even more implausible, hinging as it does on the existence of a massive conspiracy theory.

Here too, thinking is required. Science does science. In order to discuss the science, it is important, if not imperative, to be up to speed on the attendant issues and vocabulary.

"thermite" suggests you aren't. But don't let that get you down for this IS rocket science and I must admit that it has a steep learning curve.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

Again: Jones didn't analyze the flow from WTC2. He's got nothing but a photo to go on. That's not science.

Your focus is much much too narrow, BD. You are grasping at straws, ignoring the available evidence.

Watch this video.

Proof that Thermite can cut a vertical column

I know that it will raise many questions in your mind. That's good, 'cause then you know you are in scientific mode.

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

It didn't seem to bother you one bit advancing NIST's unproven assertion, BlackDog. How many people have you mislead with your ignorance (non pejorative sense) ?

I never stated categorically what the stuff was. But in choosing between "melted aluminum from giant jetliner that crashed in a ball of flames" and "iron melted by thermite charges planted by some unproven, implausible conspiracy" I and most people with a brain would go with Occam's Razor.

No, that is false. I'm going to ask you to do something that you have so far shown a marked reluctance to do. That is think. After that let's discuss it.

All your looking for here is validation of your crackpot theories all of which are old, tired and riddled with flaws.

Here too, thinking is required. Science does science. In order to discuss the science, it is important, if not imperative, to be up to speed on the attendant issues and vocabulary.
"thermite" suggests you aren't. But don't let that get you down for this IS rocket science and I must admit that it has a steep learning curve.

ORLY? What's your background? Where's your science degree from?

Your focus is much much too narrow, BD. You are grasping at straws, ignoring the available evidence.

Watch this video.

Proof that Thermite can cut a vertical column

I know that it will raise many questions in your mind. That's good, 'cause then you know you are in scientific mode.

YouTube: not science.

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

You said, "YouTube: not science.", BD. I know you didn't watch it. The PE actually did science. Give it a look. That's what people who believe in science do.

NIST also appears on YouTube.

This is what I said about you not thinking.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

You said, "YouTube: not science.", BD. NIST also appears on YouTube.

This is what I said about you not thinking.

What's your background? Where's your degree from and in what discipline?

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

You said, BD,

"I never stated categorically what the stuff was. But in choosing between "melted aluminum from giant jetliner that crashed in a ball of flames" and "iron melted by thermite charges planted by some unproven, implausible conspiracy" I and most people with a brain would go with Occam's Razor."

That's certainly been a major part of the problem, people rushing to illogical conclusions, using things they "discovered" on Wikipedia, which they think make them look intelligent - Occam's Razor.

What you suggest, above, does not remotely approach science. It's no different than phrenology or intelligent design.

Slow down a bit and try to think. That's what science is.

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

What's your background? Where's your degree from and in what discipline?

Is this part of what you consider "thinking about science"?

Slow down and think.

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

Is this part of what you consider "thinking about science"?

Slow down and think.

So do you have a science degree or nah?

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

DP

Edited May 14, 2015 by Black Dog

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

You said, BD,

"I never stated categorically what the stuff was. But in choosing between "melted aluminum from giant jetliner that crashed in a ball of flames" and "iron melted by thermite charges planted by some unproven, implausible conspiracy" I and most people with a brain would go with Occam's Razor."

That's certainly been a major part of the problem, people rushing to illogical conclusions, using things they "discovered" on Wikipedia, which they think make them look intelligent - Occam's Razor.

What you suggest, above, does not remotely approach science. It's no different than phrenology or intelligent design.

Slow down a bit and try to think. That's what science is.

Science is rigorous process of developing and testing hypothesis.

Michael Hardner · May 14, 2015

NIST didn't do science. They have refused to provide their data for peer review. Is that science?

I think that the report was published, and there were responses to it from peers that were addressed, weren't there ? Do you have a cite for refusing to provide data ?

As things now stand, we have molten steel pouring from WTC2, when, and this is crucial, by everyone's admission, NIST included, there was no fuel source available that could have melted steel.

No we don't have that. You're starting to engage in the tactics of the bloggers now and after about 1 hour on this I'm starting to see that there isn't any good science. Also my question - do you have any evidence that it wasn't an explosion, wasn't thermite, etc. ?

Michael Hardner · May 14, 2015

Watch this video.

Will you stop it ? Videos, blog articles, and such aren't good enough for science. You're missing the point of your own OP.

Michael Hardner · May 14, 2015

NIST also appears on YouTube.

NIST published a paper, and responses to it. Being on video is fine, but a video alone isn't the basis for a thesis. There needs to be more, and I don't mean scary music and voiceovers...

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

Will you stop it ? Videos, blog articles, and such aren't good enough for science. You're missing the point of your own OP.

No, Michael, by not watching it, you are missing the point, or avoiding it. Contained therein is a professional engineer doing scientific experiments that refute both NIST and the propaganda on TV that has led hundreds of millions of people to false conclusions.

He is doing what NIST wouldn't, when it was their job.

Blogs or websites that address the science are, what else, valid science. Open to dispute, of course, but this position of yours is untenable. All scientists did, like Newton, Einstein, Galileo, ..., was blog.

Black Dog · May 14, 2015

No, Michael, by not watching it, you are missing the point, or avoiding it. Contained therein is a professional engineer doing scientific experiments that refute both NIST and the propaganda on TV that has led hundreds of millions of people to false conclusions.

He is doing what NIST wouldn't, when it was their job.

Blogs or websites that address the science are, what else, valid science. Open to dispute, of course, but this position of yours is untenable. All scientists did, like Newton, Einstein, Galileo, ..., was blog.

For someone who likes to boast about how advanced his scientific knowledge is, you seem to lack a basic understanding of the process, of which falsifiability and peer review are essential elements. Blogs and YouTube videos don't meet that standard.

poochy · May 14, 2015

You're missing the point of your own OP.

Ah no, there would had to be a point in the op, and because this entire belief is utter nonsense there really wasn't one, we should be well past this sort of conspiracy theory discussion, it's been done over and over thousands of times, the entire topic should have simply never have been allowed to stand except maybe for it's entertainment value.

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

Michael: You're starting to engage in the tactics of the bloggers now and after about 1 hour on this I'm starting to see that there isn't any good science.

Omar: You've just learned, in less than an hour, that the molten metal pouring from tower 2 wasn't aluminum. Given the evidence presented, the only available alternative, molten steel/iron, seems to be causing you enough personal distress that you write things like the above, instead of discussing the science.

Michael: my question - do you have any evidence that it wasn't an explosion, wasn't thermite, etc. ?

Omar: I don't understand your question at all. However, we do know that the fuels described by the officials story can't melt steel, or produce molten iron.

Do you now understand what a eutectic substance does?

Je suis Omar · May 14, 2015

Ah no, there would had to be a point in the op, and because this entire belief is utter nonsense there really wasn't one, we should be well past this sort of conspiracy theory discussion, it's been done over and over thousands of times, the entire topic should have simply never have been allowed to stand except maybe for it's entertainment value.

Could you point me to where you have discussed the science, Poochy?

"the entire topic should have simply never have been allowed to stand "

These are the people who rant and rave about the importance of freedom of speech.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar