Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Black Dog]

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?

Again: there is no scientific evidence of the bolded claim. Stop repeating bald-faced lies.

[Je suis Omar]

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?

Yes, I do, Michael.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/890-ae911truth-reaches-out-to-philosophers-and-engineers.html

Notice how few realize this is the situation. I suspect from reading you that you are a relatively informed individual. Yet you don't know this.

[Je suis Omar]

that the molten metal pouring from tower 2 wasn't aluminum.

Again: there is no scientific evidence of the bolded claim.

Yes, there is, BD. That would be the experiment performed by Dr Jones. The one, really a very simple one, that the large number of scientists at NIST failed to perform.

There is also the samples of steel beams/columns from WTCs1,2&7 that are melted. Had you watched the video I suggested you would have seen pictures of them.

They are also readily available on the internet.

There was no fuel available that had the capacity to melt those steel beams/columns.

There is also FEMA describing these melted beams/columns.

That leaves me wondering why people who purport to be interested in science are ignoring all this evidence. And engaging in tactics meant to divert away from this evidence.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

For anyone actually interested in real science here's a Compilation of Scientific Literature that Directly Cites to and Support's NIST's WTC 7 report's methodologies and conclusions

that the molten metal pouring from tower 2 wasn't aluminum.


Yes, there is, BD. That would be the experiment performed by Dr Jones. The one, really a very simple one, that the large number of scientists at NIST failed to perform.

There is also the samples of steel beams/columns from WTCs1,2&7 that are melted. Had you watched the video I suggested you would have seen pictures of them.

There is also FEMA describing these melted beams/columns.

That leaves me wondering why people who purport to be interested in science are ignoring all this evidence. And engaging in tactics meant to divert away from this evidence.

So the evidence that the substance coming out of the towers wasn't aluminum are studies done on materials that are not the substance coming out of the towers. Again: not an analysis of the material itself, but other materials found on the site where two 100+ story buildings collapsed. I see a teeny flaw there.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Black Dog

[Je suis Omar]

So the evidence that the substance coming out of the towers wasn't aluminum are studies done on materials that are not the substance coming out of the towers. Again: not an analysis of the material itself, but other materials found on the site where two 100+ story buildings collapsed. I see a teeny flaw there.

How many years have you been believing and advancing NIST's unsupported theory, BD? Do you see any teeny flaws in your thinking there? Any teeny flaws in what NIST has done?

I asked you to think about this notion of yours. Evidently that is beyond you. So I'll ask again. Try thinking about what you are advancing. You can of course, answer the questions above, or not, as is your usual tactic.

Like here:

"There is also the samples of steel beams/columns from WTCs1,2&7 that are melted. Had you watched the video I suggested you would have seen pictures of them."

What of the samples of melted steel beams/columns, BD? Where did they come from?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

How many years have you been believing and advancing NIST's unsupported theory, BD? Do you see any teeny flaws in your thinking there? Any teeny flaws in what NIST has done?

I asked you to think about this notion of yours. Evidently that is beyond you. So I'll ask again. Try thinking about what you are advancing. You can of course, answer the questions above, or not, as is your usual tactic.

Like here:

"There is also the samples of steel beams/columns from WTCs1,2&7 that are melted. Had you watched the video I suggested you would have seen pictures of them."

What of the samples of melted steel beams/columns, BD? Where did they come from?

What do those columms have to do with the substance seen in the photos/videos coming out of the side of the WTC? To coin a phrase: think!

[On Guard for Thee]

What do those columms have to do with the substance seen in the photos/videos coming out of the side of the WTC? To coin a phrase: think!

I dont know if you were around the last time there was this seemingly endless process to find a boogey man, who loaded up these buildings with god knows what all and the arranged for planes to be flown into them as some sort of convenient cover, up but I am seeing the same old and tired, mostly unsubstantiated, non peer reviewed science being trotted out once again. I guess once you get a bone in your teeth, its hard for some to let go.

[Black Dog]

I dont know if you were around the last time there was this seemingly endless process to find a boogey man, who loaded up these buildings with god knows what all and the arranged for planes to be flown into them as some sort of convenient cover, up but I am seeing the same old and tired, mostly unsubstantiated, non peer reviewed science being trotted out once again. I guess once you get a bone in your teeth, its hard for some to let go.

I was having these exact same arguments on this board 7 years ago, so...yeah.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Black Dog

[On Guard for Thee]

I was having these exact same arguments on this board 7 years ago, so...yeah.

BTW, I wasnt referring to you with the bone comment.

[Je suis Omar]

BTW, I wasnt referring to you with the bone comment.

Of course not, OGFT, you wouldn't want to lose someone willing to partner with you to not discuss the science. And notice that is all you have done since it was pointed out that your source was outdated and wrong. Not a peep out of you about the science - not there likely ever was.

mostly unsubstantiated, non peer reviewed science ...

So, again, you take to lying to advance your "science".

There are over 2300 hundred architects, engineers and scientists who have peer reviewed and done scientific testing.

NIST won't allow peer review because they refuse to share their data. The data which produced computer simulations that looked nothing like the actual controlled demolition of WTC 7.

NIST was asked to perform scientific testing and they agreed to, then never did.

How long have you folks been trotting out NIST as a source?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

BlackDog: What do those columms have to do with the substance seen in the photos/videos coming out of the side of the WTC? T

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

Perhaps, OGFT, you could help this young fella out with his confusion. That would be your first post in months with your "science".

[Black Dog]

BlackDog: What do those columms have to do with the substance seen in the photos/videos coming out of the side of the WTC? T

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

Perhaps, OGFT, you could help this young fella out with his confusion. That would be your first post in months with your "science".

Perhaps you could answer a simple question for once instead of ducking and dodging.

[Je suis Omar]

So now it's a "substance". This is really funny.

Your ignorance (non-pejorative meaning) is palpable, BlackDog. That would be because you fall all over yourself to trot it out and parade it so blatantly.

[Black Dog]

So now it's a "substance". This is really funny.

Chemical substances are any materials (in any state - solid, liquid or gas) that have a definite chemical composition. I don't understand why that word is objectionable, but then I'm not as up on Science as you, Dr. Science McSciencerson (PhD in Science)

Your ignorance (non-pejorative meaning) is palpable, BlackDog. That would be because you fall all over yourself to trot it out and parade it so blatantly.

What pray tell am I being ignorant about?

[Je suis Omar]

Thank you for the science lesson. You've gone from aluminum to a more careful description. Are you now beginning to see that your blind faith in NIST is unwarranted?

Why would you have me steal from OGFT an opportunity for him to describe your ignorance? (again a non pejorative sense)

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

Why would you have me steal from OGFT an opportunity for him to describe your ignorance? (again a non pejorative sense)

Why can't you answer the question (or nay other one for that matter)?

Edited May 14, 2015 by Black Dog

[Je suis Omar]

Why can't you answer the question (or nay other one for that matter)?

You're hilarious, BD. Now you do your hypocrisy dance! You missed this one, below, one among many.

"Are you now beginning to see that your blind faith in NIST is unwarranted?"

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

You're hilarious, BD. Now you do your hypocrisy dance! You missed this one, below, one among many.

"Are you now beginning to see that your blind faith in NIST is unwarranted?"

Wut

[Je suis Omar]

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

I think that it is fair to say that Dr Jones's study has been peer reviewed a thousand to two thousand times.

This is highly instructive, Michael, as to what has really gone on, what is still going on, in society at large and right here, at MLW.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/affiliate-marketing-program/890-ae911truth-reaches-out-to-philosophers-and-engineers.html

Ever since its inception in 2006, E911Truth has been calling for a peer review of the official accounts of 9/11, as well as of its own scientific theory of what happened to the three demolished World Trade Center buildings.

Contrast the above, Michael, where AE911Truth describes how it has been asking that the scientific process be followed, including its own theory, with the following, below, where we see that NIST has operated in a closed bubble. That is not anywhere close to science.

(All bolding is mine)

Next, the paper by Coste and Smith discussed the National Construction Safety Team Act Reports (NCSTAR) on WTC 7, which were authored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. When developing its WTC 7 reports, NIST passed over opportunities for significant peer review and public comment. By foregoing peer review, NIST negligently drew unsupportable conclusions and omitted essential facts about the destruction of the 47-story skyscraper.

Almost seven years after WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were leveled, NIST gave the public only one opportunity to comment in 2008 during which time a physics teacher asked a question about the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 as it collapsed.

Shyam Sundar, the lead NIST investigator, commented that freefall was impossible because "a free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it."

However, NIST eventually acknowledged that WTC 7 was in free fall for at least 105 feet of its collapse. Even though NIST confirmed the observation of free fall, it didn't revise its engineering models or correct the public reports to acknowledge that the entire supporting structure near the bottom of the building suddenly offered zero resistance. NIST's observation about zero resistance could occur only if all the supporting columns on eight floors of the building were destroyed synchronistically a feat that fire alone could not have accomplished.

Coste informed the audience that once the NCSTAR 1A "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" was released by NIST, it was criticized by the professional and scientific community.

Some of that criticism has come from AE911Truth's nearly 2,200 architects and engineers who, along with many other prominent scientists, have called on NIST to explain how it reached its conclusions. The magnitude of the scientific community's repudiation of the NIST report has been such an embarrassment for a flagship national technology institution such as NIST that even professional societies have been unwilling to review the critiques.

Furthermore, the two case study authors pointed out, NIST refused to release the computer input data used in its analysis, saying that if this information were to be released, it "might jeopardize public safety."

In fact, Coste told the Blacksburg crowd, the opposite is the case. For, if NIST's analysis is technically accurate, architects and engineers must have access to this information in order to design tall buildings that will provide safety to the public. If inaccurate, then NIST or some other organization needs to empanel a new, open, transparent, peer-reviewed study that would include all available evidence.

Through the use of Freedom of Information Act requests, critics of the NIST report have documented flaws in its analysis. Recently, NIST even acknowledged one of those flaws: WTC 7's flange stiffeners critical structural elements whose absence is key to the official failure hypothesis were omitted from its Finite Element Analysis. But NIST still has not explained its omission of three lateral support beams that were reinforcing the structure at the presumed point of collapse initiation. This recently obtained information further proves the implausibility of the core hypothesis of NCSTAR 1A.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Michael Hardner]

I suspect from reading you that you are a relatively informed individual. Yet you don't know this.

It might be because it's not that important. The link you provided didn't really explain very much. What data were they not presenting ? Surely they present some data, so what data was not being shown ? Is the explanation reasonable ? What is NIST's side ?

[Michael Hardner]

I think that it is fair to say that Dr Jones's study has been peer reviewed a thousand to two thousand times.

? What ? Peer-reviewed doesn't mean 'read'...

No... I don't want to read AE911 Truth, we're supposed to talk about science not propaganda sites. If you can just link to a peer-reviewed paper then I'll read that thanks.

I feel that I have already wasted too much time on this. I've spent an hour, and still not seen anything definitive. You talk about wanting to talk science, but instead you push blogs and videos. I'm out of patience on this, but thanks for trying to convince me ok ?

[Black Dog]

? What ? Peer-reviewed doesn't mean 'read'...

No... I don't want to read AE911 Truth, we're supposed to talk about science not propaganda sites. If you can just link to a peer-reviewed paper then I'll read that thanks.

I feel that I have already wasted too much time on this. I've spent an hour, and still not seen anything definitive. You talk about wanting to talk science, but instead you push blogs and videos. I'm out of patience on this, but thanks for trying to convince me ok ?

And even if all 2000 members of AE911 blah blah blah did review the evidence.....

1.There is not a single PhD structural engineer who has signed onto ae911truth's membership roll. Not one.

2.There are less than 50 actual purported structural engineers who have signed onto those membership rolls, and less than half of those have master's degrees. To put that in perspective, there are over 25,000 structural engineers with memberships in the Structural Engineering Institute (the premier structural engineering trade organization). That means that--at best--ae911truth has managed to pull a whopping 0.2% of professional structural engineers in support of its cause (in reality, that number is far too generous given that not every structural engineer is a member of the SEI).

3.The 2200 "architects and engineers," even if they were structural engineers with the requisite education and experience to review academic structural engineering claims (and they're not as I just showed you), do not actually review the material published on the ae911truth website. You have to be kidding if you think those blog posts are "peer reviewed" in the real sense of the word. They aren't. They are blog posts made by 4-5 dedicated conspiracy theorists that published without any review or approval of the members of the organization.

4.Ae911truth is a registered charitable organization, but that does not mean they do not solicit donations and pay their management. Richard Gage, for example, makes an $85,000 salary from ae911truth's ~$500,000 per year in revenue

BTW Jones isn't a structural engineer or a chemist or metallurgist: he's a physicist.

Here's another scientific take down of Jones and his methodology (a controlled demolition, if you will). Not that you need it. Anyone with 10 minutes and half a brain to look at YouTube videos of controlled demolitions can see that the twin towers and WTC7 collapses don't look anything like a CD.

[Michael Hardner]

Wait Jones is a physicist ? What kind. ?

[Je suis Omar]

It might be because it's not that important. The link you provided didn't really explain very much. ... What is NIST's side ?

NIST's side: 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.

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

You say "it might be because it's not that important.", Michael, attempting to downplay just how vitally important it is. NIST, like everyone with any knowledge of the issues, acknowledges that there was no fuel available that could produce temperatures high enough to melt steel.

In contrast to what you said, quoted above, the link I provided said a great deal, of great importance.

It refuted NIST's contention that the molten metal streaming from WTC 2, (just minutes before the collapse), was molten aluminum. It described how its color was not the color of molten aluminum.

It then refuted another NIST contention that organics were mixed with the aluminum giving it the color NIST needed to maintain its fiction. It did this using a scientific method that was beyond the capabilities of the scientists at NIST, scientific experimentation.

This "not that important" thing (can we say overwhelming understatement?) illustrates clearly that there had to have been another fuel source available to create molten steel/iron, because jet fuel and building contents were incapable of creating such temperatures.

Stated another way;

NIST's story, not to mention the entire official government conspiracy story, rests on office fires/jet fuel (and just office fires) for bringing down the three buildings.

The presence of molten iron and molten steel tells us that all NIST's "science", like the 911"Commission" report, was not much more than hoohaw, shovelled far and wide to great depths.

Why do you suppose it is that NIST failed to do the necessary, need I say, scientific experiments, really simple to do ones, to support their contentions? Is that indicative of science?

Edited May 15, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

It refuted NIST's contention that the molten metal streaming from WTC 2, (just minutes before the collapse), was molten aluminum. It described how its color was not the color of molten aluminum.

It didn't "refute" the NIST claim. It disputed it. Without an actual analysis of the metal (which, once again, no one has done and for obvious reasons), it's impossible to know for certain. Pure molten aluminum is silver at it's melting point, it changes colour as it cools, which it would as it started coming into contact with, oh I don't know, the open air. Also, it's worth mentioning the (seemingly obvious) fact that 767s are not constructed of pure aluminum, but aluminum alloys which would in all likelihood appear differently than pure aluminum in a commercial smelter or lab.

Again: It is not possible to identify the type of material that is flowing simply by looking at a photo, at least not scientifically and with any degree of certainty. Without that certainty, your entire theory crumbles faster than the towers did.

The simple fact that you continue to cling to the claim that material seen coming out of Tower 2 was steel/iron based solely on a photograph and not any actual scientific analysis completely undermines your entire "but...but...but....the science!" schtick.

NIST's story, not to mention the entire official government conspiracy story, rests on office fires/jet fuel (and just office fires) for bringing down the three buildings.

Again: this is a misrepresentation that completely neglects the role the impact two 400,000 pound jets smashing into the towers at 600 miles per hour played in the events of the day.

I look forward to your non-response/personal attack.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Black Dog