Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

See BlackDog's sources, which I have copied and pasted, below.

1.

2.

3.

Three sources. That's way better than usual.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

See BlackDog's sources, which I have copied and pasted, below.

1. The only evidence of a liquid metal coming from the towers is photographic; no samples exist

2. Without samples, it is impossible to scientifically determine its composition.

3. Without scientific analysis, any and all theories as to the composition would be unfalsifiable and purely speculative

In short: we don't know what it is, we can't know what it is and anyone who says they know what it is is just guessing. You don't need a source for that, just a basic understanding of logic and science.

[Je suis Omar]

In short: ... You don't need a source for that, just a basic understanding of logic and science.

In short, you might not need a source from someone competent, but we're talking BlackDog here.

[Black Dog]

In short, you might not need a source from someone competent, but we're talking BlackDog here.

Called it:

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

JSO can't handle argument, can't handle logic, doesn't understand science, but buddy can paste a mean wall of text.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

...acknowledges that there was no fuel available that could produce temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Yes, nobody is challenging that.

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

It's not clear to me. I asked for an explanation already, but we're getting into some murky areas. You're talking about them 'refusing to release data' but the link talked about some specific data, and provided NIST's reason without giving exactly their point of view. Also it seems to have nothing to do with the temperatures.

If it was important, why doesn't the MSM care ? It's not science, but really we're getting down to the mundane issues of process around science not the science itself.

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.

NIST's explanation seems right, though.

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.

No the 'not that important' thing is the noise around refusal to release data, etc.

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.

There is no such 'presence'. It's not proven.

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?

'Necessary' to prove someone else's thesis. They could design infinite experiments to support their intentions, but they don't have to. If somebody has a better idea, then let them explain it in a paper and we can look at that.

Really, though, we're giving this enough attention. There are other things to look at first, like how could this even happen ? Better than speculating about the colour of molten metal and so on, there are other obvious things that make the hypothesis faulty, although they don't relate to science.

[Black Dog]

There are other things to look at first, like how could this even happen ? Better than speculating about the colour of molten metal and so on, there are other obvious things that make the hypothesis faulty, although they don't relate to science.

Yup. If the towers were destroyed with nanothermite or mini-nukes or whatever, the obvious question is: who put them there? Why and how?

[Je suis Omar]

A video, with Leslie Robertson describing how the WTC towers were designed for the impact of an airliner.

Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rjmHqES_lto&t=40s

The video is not clear enough to determine that it is indeed Mr Robinson who is describing molten steel at the WTC complex after 9/11.

[Black Dog]

A video, with Leslie Robertson describing how the WTC towers were designed for the impact of an airliner.

The guys who built the Titanic thought it was unsinkable too.

Les Robertson Confirms Molten Metal in WTC Basement

And did he actually analyze the composition of this "little river of steel"? No? Then that's hardly scientific. Think harder!

Edited May 15, 2015 by Black Dog

[Je suis Omar]

Je suis Omar:

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.

Michael Hardner: There is no such 'presence'. It's not proven.

We have the molten metal mistakenly described as aluminum, by NIST, from WTC 2. If not aluminum, what was it?

[Black Dog]

We have the molten metal mistakenly described as aluminum, by NIST, from WTC 2. If not aluminum, what was it?

I got to give you credit: most people, after having been as thoroughly trounced on a point as you have been on this one, would either recant, or shift focus to some other line of argument. Your willingness to keep hammering this single, easily refuted aspect of the whole story is either almost admirable stubbornness or the sign of a truly broken mind.

[Je suis Omar]

Je suis Omar:

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.

Michael Hardner: NIST's explanation seems right, though.

Is that science, Michael? Do explain.

[Black Dog]

More on the design of the Towers:

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

-Link

[Je suis Omar]

... easily refuted aspect of the whole story ... .

I know you keep repeating this, like a robot, BD, but you never attempt to refute.

And your sources are, as has been noted, nonexistent.

[Je suis Omar]

-Link

The USA's answer to Joseph Goebbels.

The USA protected and brought into their ranks many of the worst of the Nazis, the SS, ... . Do you think he was actually brought over to train the NYT or did they just incorporate his methods?

Edited May 15, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

I know you keep repeating this, like a robot, BD, but you never attempt to refute.

Except above, where I refuted it.

And your sources are, as has been noted, nonexistent.

Would you actually address the points if I did provide a source? I have no reason to believe you would.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

The USA's answer to Joseph Goebbels.

The USA protected and brought into their ranks many of the worst of the Nazis, the SS, ... . Do you think he was actually brought over to train the NYT or did they just incorporate his methods?

Called it.

Would you actually address the points if I did provide a source? I have no reason to believe you would.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Black Dog

[Je suis Omar]

Would you actually address the points if I did provide a source?

I notice that you used irrealis.

[Black Dog]

I notice that you used irrealis.

Is that the brain medication you are currently off?

[Michael Hardner]

We have the molten metal mistakenly described as aluminum, by NIST, from WTC 2. If not aluminum, what was it?

Why mistakenly ?

[Je suis Omar]

Why mistakenly ?

If it wasn't aluminum, what was it, Michael?

[Smallc]

If it wasn't aluminum, what was it, Michael?

Liquified pixie dust?

[Je suis Omar]

Liquified pixie dust?

Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Smallc]

Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

I don't know, why won't you discuss the actual science?

[Je suis Omar]

I don't know, why won't you discuss the actual science?

I am completely willing. What would you like to discuss?

[Black Dog]

I am completely willing. What would you like to discuss?

It's been fun, but I think it's time we bid you farewell, loser.