Did Professor Steven E. Jones write a Peer Reviewed Paper on the Yellow Molten Metal?

I've found the following reference, but cannot find out if the paper refers to the yellow molten metal pouring from the South WTC Tower:

Steven E. Jones, “What accounts for the molten metal observed on 9/11/2001?”, Journal of the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 83:252, 2006.

Would anyone out there have more information? 

UPDATE:  I did find this discussion:

Molten metal, White Smoke and the World Trade Center Collapses
Steven E. Jones,  with Jeffrey Farrer, Wesley Lifferth, John Ellsworth, Jared Dodson, and  Jacob Stevenson
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University
Abstract for a presentation at the Utah Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, April 7, 2006 at Snow College, Ephraim, Utah.

   Dramatic video footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse on 9/11/2001. [1]  (See:  http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm )  The fact that this is indeed molten metal was confirmed in official FEMA and NIST 9/11 reports. [2, 3]  Could this be molten aluminum (from the plane), or molten steel (due to fires), or molten iron (due to thermite reactions)?
   The yellow-white color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 -1200 oC, above the temperature which the dark-smoke fires in the Towers would likely produce.[1]  In any case, structural steel melts at about 1510 oC, far above that which could be attained from the fires, and several scientists and engineers confirm that the jet fuel (or other fires that day) could NOT have melted the steel.[1]  Hence, the molten structural-steel hypothesis is ruled out.
   How about aluminum?  If aluminum alloy (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of roughly 500 - 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Furthermore, aluminum has unusually low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum at any temperature will appear silvery-gray (confirmed in experiments done at BYU).  But this molten metal clearly appears bright yellow-white, in broad daylight.  Hence, molten aluminum is also ruled out as an explanation.  
   However, molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is consistent with a thermite-reaction occurring in the Tower, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures:
                   2Al  + Fe2O3  =  Al2O3  +  2Fe (molten iron),         ?H  =  ? 853.5 kJ/mole.
Thus, the yellow-white hot molten metal seen on 9/11 could be molten iron from a thermite-derivative reaction.  Indeed, we have found no other reasonable explanations.  Anomalous pools of red-to-yellow-hot molten metal observed under the rubble piles of both Towers and WTC 7 lend further evidence for the occurrence of highly-exothermic thermite reactions associated with the collapses of these WTC skyscrapers on 9/11/2001.[1]

1.  S.E. Jones, “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” available at:  http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.

2.  McAllister, T., ed. 2002. World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations. FEMA 403. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May, 2002.

3. NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf 

The Military/Educational Complex

Interesting study that points out what I've suspected: a growing reliance on defense contracts for funding of higher education:

When President Dwight Eisenhower gave his prophetic January 1961 farewell speech warning of the growth of “unwarranted influence” on universities and government by the defense industry, relatively few universities had Department of Defense contracts. As of December 2006, 1,107 universities had DoD contracts, including 161 in 33 other countries. 

The 900% growth of Department of Defense research and development, test and evaluation (RDTE defense-applied research) prime contracts as reported from fiscal years 2000 through 2006 caps a 60-year trend of expanding ties between the defense industry and institutes of higher education. 

Although the number of assistance contracts remained largely constant during this period, a 900% rise in RDTE defense-applied research contracts and total dollars to universities occurred. Total dollar amounts awarded to schools rose from $4.4 billion in 2000 to $46.7 billion in 2006. The total number of DoD RDTE defense-applied research contracts to schools rose from 5,887 in 2000 to 52,667 in 2006 (table below). 

So when one asks an expert who works for a university his/her opinion of  the 9/11 Truth Movement, will he/she be wondering what effect his/her answer will have on future funding for his/her department? 

UPDATE:  It's interesting that the lion's share of the increase in defense contracts came in 2006.  

What the Heck are Stiffener Plates and What do They Have to do with WTC7?

I've been reading all the hubbub about how now that NIST has admitted that there were stiffener plates on the columns of WTC7, that their explanation for the collapse of the building no longer holds water. I had no idea what stiffener plates were or why they were relevant. So I finally googled images of stiffener plates.

Oh.  Now I get it. 

Positive Effects of Edward Snowden's Whistleblowing

In an article that includes an in depth interview of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, journalist Barton Gellman makes the observation:

On Dec. 16, in a lawsuit that could not have gone forward without the disclosures made possible by Snowden, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon described the NSA’s capabilities as “almost Orwellian” and said its bulk collection of U.S. domestic telephone records was probably unconstitutional.

The next day, in the Roosevelt Room, an unusual delegation of executives from old telephone companies and young Internet firms told President Obama that the NSA’s intrusion into their networks was a threat to the U.S. information economy. The following day, an advisory panel appointed by Obama recommended substantial new restrictions on the NSA, including an end to the domestic call-records program.

It sounds like the beginning of a happy ending.  I'm just waiting to hear that Snowden is fully exonerated and allowed to return to the U.S. without fear of prosecution. 

HT: Egalicontrarian

Non-Truther Expert Calls Yellow Molten Metal "Thermitic"

If you look at the National Geographic 9/11 Conspiracies Documentary, starting at about the 31 minute mark, you'll see Thomas Eager, professor of materials engineering at MIT, say that the yellow molten metal pouring from the South Tower is thermitic in nature, but is probably caused by the melted aluminum from the plane reacting with some other material.

This would contradict NIST's explanation that the yellow molten metal is a mixture of molten aluminum and burnt organic material.  Mixing with something and reacting with something are completely different phenomena.  Thus, our air is a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen (and other gases), while water is a chemical compound formed from the reaction of oxygen and hydrogen.

Now I have no idea if the yellow molten metal is thermitic, or a mixture of aluminum and organic materials, or something else altogether.  But I've been lectured that I should ask the experts, since of course they know, and of course they will tell me it is a mixture of aluminum and organic materials.  Yet here we have a non-Truther expert disagreeing with other non-Truther experts about that question. So which experts should I trust?

I have a better idea:  Somebody find a peer reviewed paper that is pertinent to this question, or do a clear experiment that supports one view or the other (by the way, I think Steven Jones experiment is suggestive, but I don't think it's clear that he's disproven NIST).  Until then, my point holds:  NIST did not properly investigate the nature of the yellow molten metal.

Now I think Jaydeehess is correct, and that even if NIST is wrong, this does not tell us that the yellow molten metal is thermitic.  However, it's possible that Thomas Eager might know more than Jaydeehess or I about this matter.

Example 3 of Relevant Evidence of the WTC Collapses that NIST did Not Properly* Investigate: The Yellow Molten Metal

(*I've just added "properly" to the title of this post, as a way of acknowledging that NIST did investigate the phenomenon, but didn't try to verify their explanation).

Continuing my series of posts (see Example 1and Example 2 )on why laypersons should want a further investigation of 9/11, I come to the yellow molten metal pouring from the South Tower, shortly before its collapse.   Watch for example, this video:

Though NIST did not initially investigate the nature of phenomenon, in a reply to frequently asked questions (republished with comments by Jim Hoffman), they do offer an answer to a question about it:

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1. 

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed. 

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning. 

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

But as Mr. Hoffman noted, physics professor Steven E. Jones had tried unsuccessfully to reproduce the yellow appearance by mixing molten aluminum with "hot, partially burned, solid organic materials."  

So what NIST would need to do is experimentally verify their hypothesis that the yellow molten metal could indeed have been aluminum.  As far as I know, neither NIST (nor anyone else) has bothered to do so. 

But one might inquire why this is relevant evidence that NIST needs to investigate.  I would suggest that NIST made it relevant by bothering to offer an answer to what the molten material might be.  Had NIST ignored the question or said that determining its nature wasn't relevant, then we laypeople might not have reason to demand that they investigate the matter further.  But since NIST went to the trouble of trying to answer the question, they themselves made it relevant to the investigation.  

But why might this be relevant to an investigation of the collapse of the South tower?  

Thermite vs Safe is my favorite example of showing what thermite can do and what it looks like while doing it:

So is this what the yellow molten metal was that was pouring from the South Tower on 9/11?  If not, then what was it? 

Correspondence with Jonathan Barnett on Significance of Corroded Steel

While trying to find the original New York Times article in which one of the lead engineers of FEMA,  Jonathan Barnett,  was to supposed to have said something about "evaporated steel" at WTC7,  I came across a website that had the transcript of correspondence with him about his remarks. It also has much more of his opinions about what brought down WTC1 and 2, which certainly doesn't support the controlled demolition hypothesis. But I will quote the part related to WTC7 and the evaporated steel:


Dear Prof. Barnett,

I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been "partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up this observation?

I would be most grateful for your observations.

Sincerely yours,

Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006

---

Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007

---

Dear Prof. Barnett,
I am aware of the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report which reported unexplained sulferization and corrosion of the steel of the towers and WTC7. Professor Steven Jones finds that the most plausible explanation is the use of thermite. According to his account, thermite would fully explain these observations.
What is your take on that?
Elias 2 January 2007

---

I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty.
As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky theory.
[Jonathan] 2 January 2007 


 I think it's clear from Barnett's remarks that he was not happy with the theory that fire brought down WTC7, since it did not account for the "evaporated" steel.  He does not mention how much steel he found in this condition, but it was enough to trouble him about hypotheses of fire alone bringing down the building.  The gypsum wallboard hypothesis seemed to relieve his troubles.  I wonder what he thinks now that Jonathan Cole has performed his experiment.  My guess is that Barnett would say that if Cole's steel had burned longer, perhaps it would look more like the corroded steel he found at the sites.  Again, it would help if someone did a metallurgical analysis of Cole's steel, so that we could compare it with FEMA's samples. 

The whole correspondence is worth reading for anyone digging for the truth.  Barnett makes it clear that they did not find evidence of explosives for WTC1 and 2.  He makes it clear that he thinks their collapses are fully understandable and predictable from an engineering point of view.

I wonder if Barnett is available to answer further questions.  I could be mistaken, but he strikes me as an honest fellow.  I think he would be helpful for those who are interested in finding the truth. 

Example 2 of Relevant Evidence of the WTC Collapses that NIST did not Investigate: Free Fall of WTC7

In their final report on the collapse of WTC7 NIST offered a computer simulation of the collapse, based on the assumption that the acceleration of the collapse was 40% slower than free fall.  However, during the technical briefing of the report high school physics teacher David Chandler made it clear that there was actual free fall during the collapse of about 2.25 seconds.  In other words, there was a period of time when there was no support for the building and it fell at gravitational acceleration.  NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall.

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall:

But NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred.  As the following video demonstrates the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall:

What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur.



HT: 911speakout.org and 9/11debunkers.blogspot.com