Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Je suis Omar]

QUOTE FROM SCOTTY HAS BEEN MOVED HERE FROM,

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24008-shots-fired-on-parliament-hill/page-70#entry1056741

Scotty

Everyone has already looked at the evidence and overwhelmingly they have decided that the WTC was destroyed by aircraft not by controlled devices. As far as I'm aware no one of any stature or reputation believes otherwise. And most of those who do seem to believe in this theory, if you look at them, turn out to have more than a few screws loose.

Do you consider that FEMA, as a large group of individuals, "have more than a few screws loose"?

You do know who FEMA is, don't you, Scotty? I just want to make sure that you are somewhat up to speed on these issues.

What about the USGS? Do they also have screws loose?

Leslie Robertson, who was part of the original WTC towers design team, saw and described molten steel in the basement of one of the WTC buildings. He also described the WTC towers as buildings that would withstand the impacts of a fully loaded 707.

John Skilling, the lead design engineer for the WTC towers, also described how the towers would withstand these impacts, big fires would result, he allowed but the towers would still stand.

What about Professor Jonathon Barnett? Oh here, you read the infomation yourself which clearly proves that there was not only molten steel and molten iron, there was "eutectic reaction occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss

cheese".

There was also evidence of melted molybdenum, "molybdenum-rich spherule, which had been observed and studied by the USGS team. This information is remarkable, because molybdenum (Mo) is known for its extremely high melting point: 2,623°C (4,753°F)."

There was vaporized lead, which would need temperatures of 1,749°C (3,180°F). All these temperatures were so far above the temperatures that were possible with jet fuel and office contents. They produced molten metals that COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN MELTED WITHOUT THE AID OF HI TECH MILITARY GRADE EXPLOSIVES.

Read on McDuff!

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

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]

I-B. The RJ Lee Report

In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled WTC Dust Signature, at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust, unique to the WTC Event. [19] The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature. [20] This was the only statement about irons being modified by high temperature in this 2004 report.

However, RJ Lee had written an earlier report in 2003, entitled WTC Dust Signature Study, which contained much more about iron. It said: Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust but are not common in normal interior office dust. [21] This 2003 version of the report even pointed out that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted an enormous amount of the WTC dust: 5.87 percent (meaning that there was almost 1,500 times more iron in the dust than normal). [22] This earlier version also explicitly stated that iron and other metals were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. [23]

In addition, whereas the 2004 report did not use the word vaporize, this earlier version spoke of temperatures at which lead would have undergone vaporization. [24] Accordingly, whereas the 2004 report referred to high temperatures, the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F). [25]

I-C. The USGS Report

In 2005, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) published a report entitled Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, which was intended to aid the identification of WTC dust components. Among the components, it reported, were metal or metal oxides (which could not be distinguished by the USGSs methods). The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust, the report said, are Fe-rich [iron-rich] and Zn-rich [zinc-rich] particles. [26] The report included a micrograph of an iron-rich sphere. [27]

These iron-rich spherical particles or spherules, as they are sometimes called could only come about if iron is melted and then sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. [28]

Accordingly, the USGS report mentioned (without explaining) the existence of particles in the dust that should not have been there, according to the NIST explanation of the collapses.

I-D. Report by the Steven Jones Group

NIST also ignored a third scientific report describing phenomena in the WTC dust that could have been produced only by extremely high temperatures. Entitled, in fact, Extremely High Temperatures during the World Trade Center Destruction, this report, written by Steven Jones and seven other scientists, pointed out the existence of particles in the dust that required even higher temperatures than those implied by the RJ Lee and USGS reports.

Jones and his colleagues performed tests using their own samples of WTC dust, which had been collected shortly after the destruction of the WTC either very shortly afterwards or from the inside of nearby buildings (which means that the dust could not have been contaminated by clean-up operations at Ground Zero). They reported finding an abundance of tiny solidified droplets roughly spherical in shape (spherules), which were primarily iron-rich and silicates. The iron-rich spherules would have required a temperature of 1,538°C (2,800°F). The silicates often contained aluminum, and aluminosilicate spherules, which were found in abundance in the dust, would have required a temperature of 1,450°C (2,652°F). [29]

Iron could not have arisen from the steel alone and should not have been found in the rubble. The iron, which needs to be accounted for, is a byproduct of the thermite reaction.

Still more remarkable, the Jones group reported, was a spherule found in the dust that was not mentioned in USGSs Particle Atlas, and which was obtained only through an FOIA request, namely, a molybdenum-rich spherule, which had been observed and studied by the USGS team. This information is remarkable, because molybdenum (Mo) is known for its extremely high melting point: 2,623°C (4,753°F). [30] The presence of this molybdenum-rich spherulein the WTC dust was not mentioned by NIST, although it could have learned about it from the article by the Jones group or directly from the USGS.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

How many times is this guy going to spam this thread with the same link?

[Je suis Omar]

How many times is this guy going to spam this thread with the same link?

How many times are you going to studiously ignore the facts, BlackDog?

[poochy]

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.

I find you boring, and you're topic is an embarrassment. No?

OK, how about this, Jews are descended from an Alien race, placed here on earth to subjugate all others. Now i have no actual real evidence of any kind, and all reasonable science fly's completely in the face of that statement, but hell, lets discuss it. Or maybe, if say i was in charge, i wouldn't allow it, simply because it is completely ridiculous, and comes from a dark place full of other motives. Just like your 'nearly every post is an anti USA smear' nonsense. We all know you believe the great satan killed thousands of their own citizens on 9/11, of course you can't prove any of it.

There is a good chance that you won't get a chance to read this before the mod squad deletes it. It seems that protecting outright lies is more important than allowing people to call them exactly that, and of course to think that spewing those lies doesn't call your character into question is equally ridiculous.

Edited May 25, 2015 by poochy

[Black Dog]

How many times are you going to studiously ignore the facts, BlackDog?

Hey maybe you should post that BS link again, that';s sure to change our minds.

[Je suis Omar]

I find you boring, and you're topic is an embarrassment.

* No legitimate fuel source was available on 9-11 to melt steel, create iron spherules, vaporize lead or melt molybdenum.

*No legitimate fuel source was available that could have created the extreme temperatures necessary to do the above.

* Examples of molten steel, molten iron, vaporized lead, melted molybdenum were all found in the WTC rubble.

What conclusions do you draw from the above facts?

[Je suis Omar]

Hey maybe you should post that BS link again, that';s sure to change our minds.

Please explain what errors you see in the material and why you believe them to be errors.

[Je suis Omar]

I find you boring, and you're topic is an embarrassment. No?

OK, how about this, Jews are descended from an Alien race, placed here on earth to subjugate all others. Now i have no actual real evidence of any kind, and all reasonable science fly's completely in the face of that statement, but hell, lets discuss it. Or maybe, if say i was in charge, i wouldn't allow it, simply because it is completely ridiculous, and comes from a dark place full of other motives. Just like your 'nearly every post is an anti USA smear' nonsense. We all know you believe the great satan killed thousands of their own citizens on 9/11, of course you can't prove any of it.

There is a good chance that you won't get a chance to read this before the mod squad deletes it. It seems that protecting outright lies is more important than allowing people to call them exactly that, and of course to think that spewing those lies doesn't call your character into question is equally ridiculous.

I hope that the moderators will allow you to express your opinion, Poochy. I hope that this stays. But of course you do realize that I have no direct control over that.

I would even be willing to discuss this theory that you just laid down here. Start a thread and we'll have at 'er.

But returning to the facts that I laid out for you to consider, before you edited your post. I shan't post them again here but I feel quite strongly that you feel the facts are what is important.

I look forward to your reply on the facts.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[jbg]

* No legitimate fuel source was available on 9-11 to melt steel, create iron spherules, vaporize lead or melt molybdenum.

*No legitimate fuel source was available that could have created the extreme temperatures necessary to do the above.

* Examples of molten steel, molten iron, vaporized lead, melted molybdenum were all found in the WTC rubble.

What conclusions do you draw from the above facts?

Tons of jet fuel from transcontinental flights that just took off wouldn't do it?

[Je suis Omar]

Tons of jet fuel from transcontinental flights that just took off wouldn't do it?

Nope, jbg, even trillions of tons of jet fuel wouldn't do it. Hydrocarbons cannot attain the temperatures required to do these things in an open air fire like that of 9-11.

"because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F)"

"Steel, which has a melting point of [1538 degrees C] 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit"

"molybdenum (Mo) is known for its extremely high melting point: 2,623°C (4,753°F)."

"Accordingly, whereas the 2004 report referred to high temperatures, the earlier report indicated that the temperatures were not merely high but extremely high, because for lead to boil and hence vaporize, it must be heated to 1,749°C (3,180°F)."

Ibid

Edited May 25, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

Please explain what errors you see in the material and why you believe them to be errors.

Already did so multiple times and you just ignored it. No point in engaging someone who is just here to troll for attention.

[Je suis Omar]

Already did so multiple times and you just ignored it.

No point in engaging someone who is just here to troll for attention.

You "address" things like OGFT "addresses" things. Like you have above.

This information, which you, still, studiously ignore, comes from FEMA, the USGS, RJ Lee Group - I trust you know you these folks are.

Run back to your game of thrones, BD. Fantasy is obviously your number one choice.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Je suis Omar]

Already did so multiple times and you just ignored it.

It should be very easy for you to produce one out of your "multiple times".

[Black Dog]

You "address" things like OGFT "addresses" things. Like you have above.

You mean when I took the logic of your ridiculous, lie-filled 9-11 theory to pieces a few pages back? Yeah that was pretty thorough. Left you speechless.

One simple question regarding the liquid material coming out of the WTC: who performed a chemical analysis of it?

[Je suis Omar]

One simple question regarding the liquid material coming out of the WTC: who performed a chemical analysis of it?

A number of scientists and engineers have analyzed the event. Even NIST made an attempt, which you naively clamped onto.

But NIST was wrong. They could have performed these simple experiments to validate their hypothesis. After all, that was their job. They didn't.

Now, there is a great deal of material that you haven't addressed. JBG has addressed it. What's holding you back?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Black Dog]

A number of scientists and engineers have analyzed the event. Even NIST made an attempt, which you naively clamped onto.

You didn't answer the question. Again.

One simple question regarding the liquid material coming out of the WTC: who performed a chemical analysis of it?

[Je suis Omar]

You didn't answer the question. Again.

How long are you going to go on parading your ignorance (non pejorative sense) on the molten steel or iron coming out of WTC 2?

NIST's contention that it was molten aluminum was proven wrong.

NIST's further contention that it was mixed up with organics was also proven wrong.

It wasn't molten aluminum so what ELSE could it have been?

Blacksmiths have for centuries been describing heated metals by their colors.

In this case, aluminum isn't a possibility!

It wasn't molten aluminum so what ELSE could it have been?

Five posts from you, the fellow who claims he addresses the issues, and still there's nothing on the unexplained, unexplainable molten steel, iron, lead, molybdenum.

[Black Dog]

How long are you going to go on parading your ignorance (non pejorative sense) on the molten steel or iron coming out of WTC 2?

Why are you unable to answer the simple question I put forward?

NIST's contention that it was molten aluminum was proven wrong.

Again: in order to scientifically prove the NIST hypothesis that the stream was molten aluminum was incorrect, one would have to have performed an analysis of the material in question. Was such an analysis performed? If so, by whom? Where are the results of their study and the subsequent peer review?

It wasn't molten aluminum so what ELSE could it have been?

Without a proper scientific analysis of a sample of the material, it's impossible to say definitively one way or another what it was. As such, molten aluminum cannot be ruled out. Neither, I suppose, could molten iron, steel, adamantium, or unobtanium. It would certainly not be very scientific to make any categorical pronouncements one way or another.

[Civis Romanus sum]

Please explain what errors you see in the material and why you believe them to be errors.

No one is going to bother to argue the citations and opinions you post from psychopaths and maniacs and other freaks and losers.

If the US was as evil as you say they are, and any of this was remotely true, they'd have silenced all these freaks years ago.

To anyone but you that might be a clue.

[GostHacked]

I already said, Omar, it's no longer about science. Trying to establish if somebody knew there were "eyewitnesses", whatever that means... and calling people liars. It's a farce, it's a courtroom drama piece, not science. Sorry.

I suggest watching that documentary I posted early on in this thread. It may not convince you, but out of all 9-11 docs that are out there, this one stands out for me. Does not get into motive, does not get into speculation, just documents some of the events leading up to the towers falling. If you decide to spend any amount of time on it, do it on this one. If you do watch it, I would love to know what you think of it.

[Je suis Omar]

I suggest watching that documentary I posted early on in this thread. It may not convince you, but out of all 9-11 docs that are out there, this one stands out for me. Does not get into motive, does not get into speculation, just documents some of the events leading up to the towers falling. If you decide to spend any amount of time on it, do it on this one. If you do watch it, I would love to know what you think of it.

I watched a bit, GH, but it just seemed to be filming of the event. It was an hour long as I recall - correct me if I'm wrong.

If you could give a précis of what you felt was so pertinent, it might be worth a view.

But I have to say I'm perplexed at what so many seem to be missing; whether it's on purpose or not, it is hard to tell.

There was no chance, zero chance according to the official story for there to be molten steel, molten iron and certainly not vaporized lead or molybdenum because none of the available fuel sources, jet fuel and office furnishings could generate temperatures anywhere close to the temperatures needed to melt the aforementioned metals.

And yet, there WAS evidence, lots of it, for molten metal, the steel framing components of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

How do you explain the presence of molten steel and iron when it is an impossibility according to the official story?

Please, Jacee, cybercoma, Michael, anyone who cares to, explain how it is possible for that molten metal to have existed. Some still exists.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[eyeball]

If the US was as evil as you say they are, and any of this was remotely true, they'd have silenced all these freaks years ago.

If the US government was competent enough to pull something like this off, this website would have a forum for discussing interplanetary politics and the first starships would be arriving at their destinations.

[Boges]

If the US government was competent enough to pull something like this off, this website would have a forum for discussing interplanetary politics and the first starships would be arriving at their destinations.

Not talking about the science!!!

[Black Dog]

But I have to say I'm perplexed at what so many seem to be missing; whether it's on purpose or not, it is hard to tell.

There was no chance, zero chance according to the official story for there to be molten steel, molten iron and certainly not vaporized lead or molybdenum because none of the available fuel sources, jet fuel and office furnishings could generate temperatures anywhere close to the temperatures needed to melt the aforementioned metals.

And yet, there WAS evidence, lots of it, for molten metal, the steel framing components of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

Here's what the RJ Lee group (you know who they are) had to say about those microspheres:

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.

IOW: there's nothing unusual about the presence of such particles in WTC dust. If anything, it'd be weirder if they weren't there.

As for the molten iron and steel, well, there remains no evidence of such things. The "pools of molten metal" is based on eyewitness statements and not scientific evidence. The "flow of molten steel and iron" is based on a photograph and not scientific evidence. So I guess the question is: why won't you discuss the science?

[GostHacked]

I watched a bit, GH, but it just seemed to be filming of the event. It was an hour long as I recall - correct me if I'm wrong.

If you could give a précis of what you felt was so pertinent, it might be worth a view.

It is just filming the event. It's worth a view, maybe two. Like I said, most of the other 9-11 movies are garbage and speculation. Since you put so much time into this thread, it would be worth it to spend the time watching the film. I won't point out the important parts as they are quite evident when you watch it.