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?
78 comments:
As with the other arguments, there are replies by competent persons readily available. Two that one finds immediately:
(1) Mohr's exchange at #128 in part 8 here, with a few references:
http://chrismohr911.com/
and
(2) An extremely long and tedious discussion at the often long and tedious "Debunking 911" site (the general topic of this section is molten steel, but much of it is spent on the specific images you refer to). This contains several helpful items, including (just what I'd recommend in a case like this!) expert correspondence:
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
For the record, Mohr also seems to engage in the practice I recommend for laypersons, which is constantly seeking out expert guidance in adjudicating an expert dispute (especially when one is inclined to take a minority position, which Mohr is not, making his efforts even more admirable).
Btw, while I'm happy to hear why you don't find the material in these links convincing, I just want to be clear that the point of posting them is to highlight the superficiality of your original post. There is no way that what you've posted is enough to warrant a layperson doubting the official statement on this question by NIST - just like the old Blueprint for Truth video couldn't possibility be enough to warrant a layperson accepting the more general controlled demolition thesis. Minimally, one would have to do the sort of quasi-investigative work evidenced in the two links I mention.
I looked up Mohr's discussion. I failed to see where he refers to any experiments showing how molten aluminum (mixed with organic materials or some other method) would appear yellow in daylight conditions. Did I miss something?
Just scanned through the second link. I remember reading this a long time ago. I have the same reaction now that I had then. Where is the experimental evidence that molten aluminum can appear yellow in daylight conditions, either by mixing with organic materials or some other means? Professor Jones has done experiments that suggest it cannot happen. The proper refutation is not to cite experts, but to cite experiments.
"Did I miss something?"
I don't think so.
"Where is the experimental evidence that molten aluminum can appear yellow in daylight conditions, either by mixing with organic materials or some other means?"
To answer this particular question, instead of self-guided poking around on the Internet, a layperson should find the public profiles of the researchers associated with this claim (at NIST and elsewhere), and/or competent experts independent of the dispute, and ask them about the claim and the evidence for it. One option would be the "Stephen D. Chastain" mentioned in the second link, who patiently and clearly explains the scientific grounds for expecting the two colors seen in the images and video. Again, this is a minimal condition, which your post doesn't meet, for a layperson to produce a convincing argument on this question.
"Professor Jones has done experiments that suggest it cannot happen."
Did these experiments reproduce the conditions in the tower in a way that makes the experiment convincing evidence against NIST's claims? And against the defenses of those claims I linked to? Also, there are of course other people able to post videos and pictures on the Internet, e.g. some people do this on the aluminum question here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238077
(This is partly why it's important to do what I suggest above.)
"The proper refutation is not to cite experts, but to cite experiments."
Experiments have to be (i) relevant to the question and then they have to be (ii) interpreted. Experts are helpful in figuring such things out. I should also add that, to challenge expert research, ideally experiments should themselves be peer-reviewed and validated by the expert community. Self-published videos and articles don't quite meet this criterion. If they did, there would be far too much material on the Internet for the scientific institutions to ever address.
Why can't you do the experiment. NIST already explained it, only those who can't do chemistry and science are baffled and fall for the nonsense put out by the 911 truth movement in their 12th year of perfected failure.
Spend you own money, and demand a refund on your education, it failed.
JDB: To answer this particular question, instead of self-guided poking around on the Internet, a layperson should find the public profiles of the researchers associated with this claim (at NIST and elsewhere), and/or competent experts independent of the dispute, and ask them about the claim and the evidence for it.
Actually, those who originally asked these experts about this issue should ask them for evidence of their claims.
One option would be the "Stephen D. Chastain" mentioned in the second link, who patiently and clearly explains the scientific grounds for expecting the two colors seen in the images and video. Again, this is a minimal condition, which your post doesn't meet, for a layperson to produce a convincing argument on this question.
Wait. Chastain produces a long, rambling article on aluminum and thermite and fails to cite any evidence (e.g., peer reviewed articles) that aluminum plus organic materials can produce the effect in question, but you want me to do the work for him?
"Professor Jones has done experiments that suggest it cannot happen."
Did these experiments reproduce the conditions in the tower in a way that makes the experiment convincing evidence against NIST's claims? And against the defenses of those claims I linked to? Also, there are of course other people able to post videos and pictures on the Internet, e.g. some people do this on the aluminum question here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=238077
Yes, and one can find "counter-videos":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OVAvg1aGQ&feature=channel_page
(This is partly why it's important to do what I suggest above.)
Do the work for them? No thank you.
"The proper refutation is not to cite experts, but to cite experiments."
Experiments have to be (i) relevant to the question and then they have to be (ii) interpreted. Experts are helpful in figuring such things out. I should also add that, to challenge expert research,
What research? Chastains? When did he provide empirical evidence that molten aluminum and organic material would appear yellow in daylight?
ideally experiments should themselves be peer-reviewed and validated by the expert community. Self-published videos and articles don't quite meet this criterion. If they did, there would be far too much material on the Internet for the scientific institutions to ever address.
Yes...which is why NIST should back up their hypothesis that molten aluminum and organic material would appear yellow. Where are the peer-reviewed articles? Remember, NIST already admitted that the aluminum should have appeared silver (not yellow as Judy Wood claimed), but that it appeared yellow because of the organic materials. So they need to support that claim with either experiments or peer-reviewed articles.
Anon: Why can't you do the experiment. NIST already explained it, only those who can't do chemistry and science are baffled and fall for the nonsense put out by the 911 truth movement in their 12th year of perfected failure.
Professor Steven E. Jones already did experiments that suggest that molten aluminum and burnt organic materials won't mix. If you think his experiments are nonsense, feel free to do experiments of your own.
jaydeehess is curious about your response to the video posted here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=9700748#post9700748
See also his remark about the video in the same link.
Btw, "Chastain" is the specialist quoted on the page, not the author of the page itself, which you seem to think.
As for the stuff not based on this misunderstanding, did Jones publish a peer-reviewed article challenging NIST and other expert testimony on the claim about how molten aluminum can appear under conditions relevantly similar to what NIST describes? This seems to be your (new?) criterion for your opponents; but if that's the criterion, then the discussion has moved backwards and I have trouble seeing how any justification at all has been given for anyone bothering to explain to people on the Internet what, evidently, people like metallurgists find totally unproblematic.
(You mentioned "counter-videos" - but that's part of the point. If all there are on this particular topic are people posting videos on the Internet in various non-peer reviewed or self-published settings, then it's unclear why anyone should take this to challenge the assertions of NIST on other experts)
As for "doing the work" for other people, that's of course not what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to do certain kinds of work for yourself - maybe there is something unconvincing, confused, or irrelevant about Jones' work that you're missing. And/or maybe the official claim about aluminum uncontroversially follows from understood mechanisms that haven't themselves been challenged (which is perhaps what would actually be required in a meaningful challenge). These are just guesses. But again, answering them is a minimal condition for a layperson having any chance of seriously adjudicating this technical dispute.
Finally, a note about NIST. You say that they said the aluminum "should have" appeared silver. What exactly are you referring to? Wasn't that claim just about molten aluminum in an isolated setting?
http://eecue.com/c/driveslag
Al not pure, pouring and glowing, and the Al is full of contaminants. Jones made up thermite claims, and has fooled those who don't do science.
The stuff pouring out the WTC is not steel, not thermite, and no thermite damage was done to any steel at the WTC; these are the facts, and what you have is talk. Facts win, talk lost.
Where is your Pulitzer? Posting lies is a great legacy.
Jaydeehess's video looks promising:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=9700748#post9700748
Do we know more about what is actually burning?
Interesting video, Anon:
http://eecue.com/c/driveslag
Still not quite what we need to refute Jones, but keep trying.
Let's begin with your last point, JDB:
Finally, a note about NIST. You say that they said the aluminum "should have" appeared silver. What exactly are you referring to? Wasn't that claim just about molten aluminum in an isolated setting?
Here is what NIST said:
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.
So NIST is saying that we should have expected the aluminum to appear silvery under the conditions of the South Tower. But then they offer an explanation of why it doesn't appear silvery. As a layperson, at this point I would have no reason for doubting them. But then Professor Jones does his experiments and claims they falsify NIST's claims. At that point, I as a layperson have reason for doubting NIST's claims. Then people quote experts that say NIST is right. Very well. In that case there should be some way of verifying that the experts are correct: peer reviewed papers or experiments. One would expect that this would be fairly easy to find, or at least reproduce. Aluminum and organic materials aren't hard to come by. But so far neither has been forthcoming.
Let's add to this the fact that National Geographic had some "experts" show us that thermite couldn't cut steel beams. Thanks to Jonathan Cole, we know that the "experts" were dead wrong. One wonders why National Geographic didn't go to the trouble of having some experts show us that molten aluminum plus burning organic materials will produce yellow molten metal. Surely National Geographic knew about the Truther's claim concerning the yellow molten metal. It's been around as long as their claim that thermite was used to cut the steel columns. So why didn't they have someone conduct what must be a very easy experiment to carry out?
So let's put this together: A Truther conducts experiments to try to falsify NIST's claims. So called experts tell us NIST is right, but cite neither papers nor experiments. National Geographic goes to the trouble of trying to falsify the Truthers' claims about thermite cutting steel, but doesn't try to falsify their claim about the yellow molten metal being thermite, instead of aluminum.
At this point, I would say the burden of proof is on the non-Truthers.
lol, amazing how some kids avoid the hard stuff. Next time take chemistry. Jones is a BS artist, his best work is about Christ Walking in the New World. You have been fooled, and believe it. Cool, being gullible is cool.
Next time take chemistry, or Chem Eng 101, and learn not to be fooled by old men who think the USAcausedd the earthquake in Haiti. 12 years of failure, 911 truth.
Hi Anon,
One peer reviewed paper or clear experiment would do more to persuade me than what you've written, so far. Until then, why waste your efforts? Aren't your fingers getting tired?
(1) "Do we know more about what is actually burning?"
I'm not sure I'm following what the standards of evaluation are here. Neither the video Jaydeehess posted nor Jones' videos are following the standard procedures for presenting things to the scientific community - so it seems to me that they more or less cancel each other out in terms of their value to a layperson, who should instead correspond with people familiar with the scientific literature, experiments, experience of practitioners, etc.
(2) "So NIST is saying that we should have expected the aluminum to appear silvery under the conditions of the South Tower."
The quote you refer to specifies what we'd expect from "pure liquid aluminum." It doesn't say it's what we would expect "under the conditions of the South Tower," which is what you say, purporting to summarize their statement.
(3) I don't know anything about the National Geographic case, so at the moment can't comment.
(4) "So let's put this together: A Truther conducts experiments to try to falsify NIST's claims. So called experts tell us NIST is right, but cite neither papers nor experiments."
As far as I can tell, the experiments in question haven't even been presented to the scientific community in the standard way. Or maybe that have been, and have been rejected? Next, I don't get the "So called experts" bit - is there someone in question in our discussion that is only a so called expert?
(5) Finally, you mistakenly wrote "Let's begin with your last point, JDB" when I think you meant "Let's begin and end with your last point, JDB." But perhaps you intend on addressing more later.
Hi Bilbo,
Not sure whether you'll allow this comment or not.
Firstly, the video link was posted by me, not Jaydee at JREF.
But now I've visited your blog, I have a major problem with the title to this page 'Relevant Evidence of the WTC Collapses that NIST did Not Investigate: The Yellow Molten Metal'
That's because NIST DID investigate the molten material, starting on p 81 and ending on p 83 of NCSTAR 1-5
If you check the definition of the word 'investigate' you'll discover it means 'to examine, study, or inquire into systematically'
So by definition your blog title is false. I have a problem with that. If you start with a false premise or statement you are either not competent or you are not really carrying out an honest inquiry.
I don't know which it is at this point. Let's see if you have the guts to post this comment... we'll go from there.
I will copy this message at JREF so they can watch what happens.
I don't take kindly to liars or cowards.
Hi, I am jaydeehess on href. Correction, its not my video. I reposted it from alienentity's original post.
It is a common pole mounted electric transformer, it will be the oil used in those for cooling, that is burning. They are basically barrels of oil with transformers in them. Their igniting is not uncommon. Not sure what is dripping off, it may be melted line insulation, blobs of oil from a break in the can, aluminum or copper connectors, or even glass insulators. What it is very unlikely to be is molten steel yet it displays very much like the material that was coming from WTC 2 which the 911 truth movement characterizes as molten steel.
No requirement for peer reviewed papers on what aluminum mixed with office contents looks like when above the melting point of aluminum. Not that I could see why anyone would ever have needed to study that.
Here we have a completely innocuous example of the very same phenomena which illustrates that the conclusion of 911 truth was premature and in error.
You ask 'Do we know more about what is actually burning?'
No, we don't. That's exactly the point, you can't tell exactly what it is unless you take samples of the residue.
Same with the towers, you can speculate, but you will never actually know for sure.
No proof of thermite in either video. Just burning stuff dripping..
http://youtu.be/IdoiqmOH9_0
[b]So NIST is saying that we should have expected the aluminum to appear silvery under the conditions of the South Tower. But then they offer an explanation of why it doesn't appear silvery.[/b]
Actually NIST said it would appear silvery in a pure state, not under the conditions of WTC2.
JDB:
I'm not sure I'm following what the standards of evaluation are here. Neither the video Jaydeehess posted nor Jones' videos are following the standard procedures for presenting things to the scientific community - so it seems to me that they more or less cancel each other out in terms of their value to a layperson, who should instead correspond with people familiar with the scientific literature, experiments, experience of practitioners, etc.
Jones at least told us what the contents were in his experiment. Perhaps he was lying, perhaps not. As far as - what turns out to be Alienentity's video - we don't know what the contents are.
The quote you refer to specifies what we'd expect from "pure liquid aluminum." It doesn't say it's what we would expect "under the conditions of the South Tower," which is what you say, purporting to summarize their statement.
Okay, we have had videos presented by people of aluminum at temperatures of 980C or more, being poured a short distance and not looking silvery. And this has been presented as evidence that we shouldn't expect aluminum in the tower to appear silvery. NIST claims that the temperature in the tower at that location would have been 980C or more, yet says that if it had been pure aluminum, we should have expected it to appear silvery. So NIST doesn't accept the argument that pure aluminum would look other than silvery at that temperature. That was the main point I was making.
(3) I don't know anything about the National Geographic case, so at the moment can't comment.
I only know what I saw in Cole's video. I think this is something worth looking into, though.
As far as I can tell, the experiments in question haven't even been presented to the scientific community in the standard way. Or maybe that have been, and have been rejected? Next, I don't get the "So called experts" bit - is there someone in question in our discussion that is only a so called expert?
Here's where National Geographic's program becomes relevant. If they have presented people they refer to as experts who state that thermite cannot cut steel beams, then they have, in effect, so eroded the status of statements by experts that it becomes difficult to take anybody's word for an authoritative source in this debate. Thus when someone presents an experiment, and an expert (supposedly or real) claims to refute it, without presenting a clear experiment or authoritative source, such as a peer reviewed paper, we can no longer take them seriously, but require additional evidence. It's become clear that the debate has moved from the realm of intellectual curiosity to the realm of ideology or worse.
Alienentity:
I allow most comments. When it's clear that the commenter only wants to hurl insults, eventually I cut them off. Clearly your comment doesn't fall under that category.
Firstly, the video link was posted by me, not Jaydee at JREF.
Sorry about that.
But now I've visited your blog, I have a major problem with the title to this page 'Relevant Evidence of the WTC Collapses that NIST did Not Investigate: The Yellow Molten Metal'
That's because NIST DID investigate the molten material, starting on p 81 and ending on p 83 of NCSTAR 1-5
If you check the definition of the word 'investigate' you'll discover it means 'to examine, study, or inquire into systematically'
So by definition your blog title is false. I have a problem with that. If you start with a false premise or statement you are either not competent or you are not really carrying out an honest inquiry.
Let me try to defend myself. I haven't read the relevant section you refer to, only the answer they gave in their question and answer FAQ. Did NIST investigate what happens when one mixes aluminum with burnt organic materials? If they did, then I agree with you that my post is mistitled and misleading, and I will retract it in a new post.
Let's see if you have the guts to post this comment... we'll go from there.
I think you would have to admit that I at least have the guts.
I don't take kindly to liars or cowards.
Neither do I.
Meanwhile, I'm glad you showed up. You have a fascinating youtube video of collapsing buildings, where the verinage method is used. In most of them, the middle stories are collapsed first. But the very last one, the stories higher up are collapsed. Unfortunately the video ends before the dust has settled, and we don't get to see the final results. Would you have a video of that demolition where the dust has settled?
Jaydeehess:
What it is very unlikely to be is molten steel yet it displays very much like the material that was coming from WTC 2 which the 911 truth movement characterizes as molten steel.
Good point.
No requirement for peer reviewed papers on what aluminum mixed with office contents looks like when above the melting point of aluminum. Not that I could see why anyone would ever have needed to study that.
Why no need for peer reviewed papers or clear experiments?
Here we have a completely innocuous example of the very same phenomena which illustrates that the conclusion of 911 truth was premature and in error.
Perhaps premature. In error? Where has that been demonstrated.
Alienentity: No, we don't. That's exactly the point, you can't tell exactly what it is unless you take samples of the residue.
Same with the towers, you can speculate, but you will never actually know for sure.
No proof of thermite in either video. Just burning stuff dripping.
As I said to Jaydeehess, good point. Here's the problem. If Jones' experiment turns out to be valid, then we would know that the burning stuff dripping isn't aluminum. So then we need to ask, what is it?
Anon:
Actually NIST said it would appear silvery in a pure state, not under the conditions of WTC2.
Right, but as I pointed out to JDB, videos of aluminum at 980C or hotter are presented as evidence that aluminum wouldn't look silvery. NIST doesn't seem to buy that argument.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the video of the burning pole transformer demonstrates the exact same phenomena of dripping yellow material as does the video of WTC2?
Hi Bilbo,
Thank you for your replies and for allowing my comments.
By your own admission you haven't read the relevant portion of NCSTAR 1-5 dealing with the molten material.
But the title of this post claims NIST did not investigate the molten metal, which you can't know since you hadn't read the report.
Therefore your title is false and says a great deal about the low quality of research you're doing.
Please don't start shifting the goal posts; your title is general enough that you didn't specify how far they investigated.
Fact is nobody will ever know (not you, not me, not NIST and not Steven Jones) exactly what the material was. It's a guess at best, and we could all be wrong. But we'll never know.
So you really have nothing here, except some kind of tail-chasing exercise which leads nowhere.
But your title is still at best wrong or very misleading. You're piling on and trying to denigrate NIST, but you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't have any videos where the dust completely settles after demolition, sorry.
I guess people figure it would just be too boring to include.
Jaydeehess: Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the video of the burning pole transformer demonstrates the exact same phenomena of dripping yellow material as does the video of WTC2?
I didn't refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not sure if it is "exact," but it certainly is very close. I get your point: Even if we could rule out aluminum as the material dripping from the South Tower, this would not prove it was thermite. The point of my post was that NIST, in my opinion, didn't do the kind of work necessary to show that it was or could be aluminum. That's all.
Alienentity: By your own admission you haven't read the relevant portion of NCSTAR 1-5 dealing with the molten material.
But the title of this post claims NIST did not investigate the molten metal, which you can't know since you hadn't read the report.
Therefore your title is false and says a great deal about the low quality of research you're doing.
I admit that I didn't (and still haven't) read NCSTAR 1-5. From the FAQ, it sounded as if they had noticed the molten metal, but hadn't tried to figure out what it was.
But before I print my retraction, let me ask you, since your quality of research is obviously much better than mine, did NIST offer any better evidence in their original report for thinking that it was aluminum?
Alienentity: I don't have any videos where the dust completely settles after demolition, sorry.
I guess people figure it would just be too boring to include.
Bummer. If the building had been completely or nearly completely demolished, it would have been a very good example of the pile-driver theory.
I didn't refuse to acknowledge it. I'm not sure if it is "exact," but it certainly is very close. I get your point: Even if we could rule out aluminum as the material dripping from the South Tower, this would not prove it was thermite. The point of my post was that NIST, in my opinion, didn't do the kind of work necessary to show that it was or could be aluminum. That's all.
I may have fialed to see where you acknowledged it was so very similar. So the point as to whether or not it is indicative of molten steel or the use of thermite is moot. One cannot, by the colour of the material in either video, determine that thermite or molten steel is in play.
The most common material then with a lower melting point than steel is the remanent of the aircraft, aluminum mostly. Thus logic would dictate that the molten material seen is likely aluminum. Since this is a very minor point wrt the task of NIST its not of particular need of detailed investigation. Had this been seen in both towers as a major part of the fire's behaviour then perhaps, it would have merited greater investigation. It wasn't and it didn't. This is not a significant part of the events of the day except in the minds of those who have made it their purpose in life to try to nail NIST on any minor detail in order to try and bolster an unsupported alternative view. In short, proving NIST wrong on details does nothing to promote any other alternative. I do wish that 911 truth investigators would try and illustrate an alternative rather than try to poke holes in the one with the most research and investigation behind it.
Hi Jaydeehess,
I've just been watching National Geographic's Documentary on 9/11 Conspiracies:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/911-science-and-conspiracy/
About the 30 minute mark Thomas Eagan talks about the the yellow molten metal. He seems to take it for granted that some sort of thermitic reaction is taking place. However, he thinks the aluminum from the plane is providing the aluminum needed in such a reaction. I find it interesting that both National Geographic and Eagan ignored NIST's explanation that it was just molten aluminum mixed with burnt organic materials, nor did National Geographic attempt to replicate NIST's hypothesis. Given that they were trying to poke holes in Truther talking points anytime they could, this is a rather interesting oversight on their part. Perahps they tried to replicate NIST's hypothesis but were unable to do so?
Meanwhile, we have at least one prominent non-Truther expert admitting that the molten metal was from a thermitic reaction.
Of course, what Eagan didn't do was try to replicate a thermitic reaction with the melted aluminum and whatever other substance he thought might have been present.
But let's say that Eagan couldn't know that it wasn't a thermitic reaction. And let's say that National Geographic just forgot to test NIST's hypothesis. So what? So NIST gave an explanation for the molten metal that appears that they didn't adequately test for. If it turns out that it wasn't aluminum, then we should ask them what it was.
However, I agree that the molten metal is a comparatively minor point, which is why I listed it as number 3.
lol, Eagan did not support thermite lies, he said melted aluminum reacting with something is essentially a thermite reaction.
Eagan's statement supports NIST. It is chemistry, not making up stuff like Jones does. Jones is super stupid on 911 issues, as is DRG.
The sparks falling out of the WTC is not minor point, it is what can happen in fire, aka normal - 911 truth uses ignorance of fire science to fool people with silly claims like thermite, CD, and the inside job. Like apologizing for the terrorists; is 911 truth trying to blame someone else?
Anon: Eagan's statement supports NIST.
No, it contradicts it, but this is worth a new post of its own.
The cool part of the yellow stuff falling out the WTC? lol, steel would be past white hot if melted, and it would be solid if yellow. See any big steel beam yellow hot falling?
You are debunked. No melted steel was found, no thermite was found. Jones does say they found it, but if you read his fake paper, they did not prove anything. Is the paper next in your quest to relieve 911 truth's biggest lies. If they tell the lie enough, only makes the lie dumber.
The yellow stuff is metal that melts at and below 1000 C, and steel does not melt at 1000 C. Glass, copper, and junk from the floor, to include Al, lead from the hundreds of power supplies for computers. The cheap metal from computers, and disk drives melting and running out the side of the WTC.
But steel would be past white hot. And be kind of like solid at yellow.
Eagan supports what NIST said, you need help with comprehension skills since you can't figure out the yellow stuff was investigated in the first place and it means the WTC was on fire. But twist it and keep your silly inside job stories on 911. The need for a new investigation is due to your ignorance of science, and gullibility.
First Anon: Truthers would contend that the yellow hot molten metal was iron from a thermitic reaction. You might be right about what it really was. This all seems within the reach of a thorough empirical study, though. Not just educated guesses by either side.
Second Anon: By calling the yellow molten metal the result of a thermitic reaction, Eagan is contradicting NIST, who said it was just a mixture of molten aluminum with burnt organic materials. I'm not the one who is "twisting" anything here. But you obviously are.
Bolbo states:This all seems within the reach of a thorough empirical study, though. Not just educated guesses by either side.
Then, given that the phenomena seen in the WTC 2 video can be produced using thermite, perhaps an organization that believes that a single incidence of molten material in evidence from one of several burning buldings in the WTC complex is relevant, should conduct such a study and see if its is possible to replicate the scene by ways that do not utilize thermite. Let us know when some group that can outline a reason for believing this incident is relevant to the destruction of WTC 2 (or WTC 1 or WTC 7 for that matter), actually conducts such an empirical study.
Hi Jaydeehess,
As I mentioned to you before, I rate this phenomenon as third in the list of things that NIST needs to properly investigate. First was the corroded steel that FEMA said should be further investigated. Second was the 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST said happened because there was "negligible" resistance from the remaining columns. Such a statement needs justification, such as calculations showing that the columns did indeed offer negligible resistance. Third, is NIST's claim that the yellow molten metal was aluminum mixed with burnt organic materials. It would be nice if they showed that such a phenomenon is possible.
lol it's so funny watching reasonable people try to reason with Bilbo, who is clearly suffering from mental illness.
The preceding comment is the type that I would normally not publish, not because it is blatantly rude and insulting, but because it does nothing to forward the discussion. If people want to insult me, at least have the courtesy to add content that furthers the debate. Otherwise, your comment won't appear.
I suspect that Anon is Beachnut from JREF, but I'm not sure.
I like the name Beachnut. Just wish he/she had something substantive to add to the conversation.
Bilbo WritesAs I mentioned to you before, I rate this phenomenon as third in the list of things that NIST needs to properly investigate. First was the corroded steel that FEMA said should be further investigated. Second was the 2.25 seconds of free fall that NIST said happened because there was "negligible" resistance from the remaining columns. Such a statement needs justification, such as calculations showing that the columns did indeed offer negligible resistance. Third, is NIST's claim that the yellow molten metal was aluminum mixed with burnt organic materials. It would be nice if they showed that such a phenomenon is possible.
I came here because of a poster on JREF following your blog posted concerning your blog on this particular subject.
But Ok, as for corroded steel, just as in the case of a single instance of dripping molten material in any of the several burning WTC structures, this is a case of iirc one instance of corroded steel. This corroded steel show s no sign of having been produced by thermitic reaction, no slag, no evidence of the effect of high heat. In short corrison does not indicate that this effect was put in place quickly let alone in a single day.
As for 2.25 seconds at near free fall acelleration. You mischaracterized it as "at free fall" when in fact the graphs clearly show acelleration as ramping up to max that is actually GREATER than 'g' then ramping back down. This time period of 2.25 seconds ends about 1 second before collapse is complete and during a period when the entire north side had already been falling for at least the same amount of time but at a slower acelleration. So, first of all, the fact that acelleration exceeds 'g' indicates succinctly that something other than strictly gravity on the facde was in play. Either there was another force in play or the effect is one in which something other than strictly vertical motion is in play. In fact both can be shown to have had an effect. First of all we know for certain that the core of the structure had failed and was in the process of collapsing WHEN the facade began its movement. This would cause the collapsing sections to exert a downward and southward pull on the rest of the structure to the north, adding to the pull of gravity on that northern section's mass. second, the motion is a rotation down and south and we are measuring well above the center of rotation and center of mass and that will cause a greater than 'g' downward acelleration of that point.
Lastly if this period indicates it was caused by explosives removing support then the graph would indicate that this removal took place 2-3 seconds AFTER the facade began its downward movement. The entire north face was already collapsing then when, for some unexplained reason, explosives removed all support.
.It would be nice if...
Problem is that NIST was not tasked with explaining to the masses all the minutia of the tower's reaction to fire and structural response. It was tasked with outlining a researched sequence of collapse with the purpose of determining what, if any, measures could be recommended for future building codes.
A single instance of dripping molten material is of interest but only in passing and simply does not warrant a large expenditure of time, manpower and money. Truthers often complain that NIST took too long yet seem insatiable in coming up with other minute details that NIST "should have" investigated further.
Hi Jaydeehess (may I call you "Jay"?),
Your write: But Ok, as for corroded steel, just as in the case of a single instance of dripping molten material in any of the several burning WTC structures, this is a case of iirc one instance of corroded steel.
Well, no, FEMA collected two samples, and from their recommendations it seems obvious that there was enough of it to make them wonder if it had accelerated the collapse of all three towers, and they recommended that it be studied further. NIST did not study it further.
We can speculate as to what caused the corrosion, but that's all it would be - speculation.
As for 2.25 seconds at near free fall acelleration. You mischaracterized it as "at free fall" when in fact the graphs clearly show acelleration as ramping up to max that is actually GREATER than 'g' then ramping back down.
I didn't mischaracterize it as "at free fall." NIST characterized it as at free fall. Your argument is with them, not me. As to what caused it, again we can speculate. NIST's answer was that the remaining columns offered "negligible" support. Very well. It that's the claim that NIST wants to make, the least they can do is offer calculations that show the remaining columns would offer negligible support.
Lastly if this period indicates it was caused by explosives removing support then the graph would indicate that this removal took place 2-3 seconds AFTER the facade began its downward movement.
Chandler shows that free fall begins less than a second after the facade begins falling. NIST's time begins sooner, though Chandler made it clear that NIST's begin time was arbitrarily picked (probably to match their computer simulation), since there is no indication of collapse at this sooner time.
Problem is that NIST was not tasked with explaining to the masses all the minutia of the tower's reaction to fire and structural response. It was tasked with outlining a researched sequence of collapse with the purpose of determining what, if any, measures could be recommended for future building codes.
The problem is that NIST went out of its way to provide an explanation for the yellow molten metal (which according to you they didn't have to do). If they are going to provide an explanation, then they need to back it up with more than just bare assertions.
But what I find interesting is that non-Truthers accuse us Truthers of not respecting the victims and families of victims of 9/11. Yet they defend NIST for not offering a complete explanation for the collapse of the buildings (which killed most of the people). Sadly ironic.
Bilbo, you assert:
"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."
That's an opinion. There is no step of formal logic and no technical or scientific argument in it. Simply a non-sequitur. That's all.
Oystein: That's an opinion. There is no step of formal logic...
Hmmm, Oystein needs a deductive argument. How about this:
(1) NIST investigated and tried to provide answers to questions that were or might be relevant to the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers.
(2) NIST investigated and tried to provide an answer to the yellow molten metal.
(3) Therefore, it is likely that NIST thought the yellow molten was or might be relevant to the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers.
... and no technical or scientific argument in it.
Of course, whether there is a technical or scientific argument depends upon what the yellow molten metal was. Since NIST said it was only molten aluminum, it is up to NIST to support its claim with something more than mere opinion.
Your point (1) is correct: "NIST investigated and tried to provide answers to questions that were or might be relevant to the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers". They determined in their final report a most probable collapse initiation sequence, and the yellow flow is not at all featured in that explanation. Hence, we can safely conclude that NIST considers the flow irrelevant to those questions.
Your point (2) is also correct: "NIST investigated and tried to provide an answer to the yellow molten metal.". Again correct - but note the context: They did so initially (within the report) merely as a preliminary step of data collection, before determining which data would turn out relevant to their overall objective. They then, subsequent to finalizong their job, looked at the yellow flow a second time simply because someone asked - "what is it?". That was, I am sure, NOT in conjunction with (1), i.e. unrelated to questions about collapse initiation. In other words, NIST was merely nice enough to answer an IRRELEVANT question about some curious quirk.
So, your point (3) remains a non-sequitur: "Therefore, it is likely that NIST thought the yellow molten was or might be relevant to the initiation of the collapse of the WTC towers" does not follow from (1) and (2), because (1) and (2) state NIST's objectives at diffferent points in time, and within different contexts.
"Of course, whether there is a technical or scientific argument depends upon what the yellow molten metal was. Since NIST said it was only molten aluminum, it is up to NIST to support its claim with something more than mere opinion."
First I'd like to point out that it isn't a priori clear that the yellowish- glowing material is metal at all (I am not even convinced it is liquid), so asking "what metal is this" begs the question.
Having said that, you are right: When NIST decides to make a positive claim, they assume a burden of proof. I find it likely that they are wrong. But whether or not they are right, and whether or not the stuff is molten Al, molten iron or whatever, there is no reason to conclude or just assume that the question or its answer is relevant with regard to collapse initiation.
Now you claim the question and its answer are relevant - so YOU assume the burden of proof for that, and you haven't delivered yet.
(3) clearly follows from (1) and (2), otherwise NIST would not have investigated it. If NIST is wrong, and the yellow liquid isn't molten aluminum, then it might in fact be relevant to the initiation of the collapse. We agree that NIST has a burden of proof - showing that it could be aluminum. If they are wrong about that, why think they are necessarily correct about the cause of the collapse?
I'm confused. Oystein explained why he thinks (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2), but it seems like you (Bilbo) just reasserted that it does. Do you have a reply to the content of his explanation?
(By the way, this argument is really, at bottom, an inductive argument and not a deductive argument.)
Also, is this the Oystein from JREF?
I'm sure you can at least agree with part of my statement, i.e. "I'm confused."
Okay, let's go to Oystein's (the or otherwise) explanation:
Your point (2) is also correct: "NIST investigated and tried to provide an answer to the yellow molten metal.". Again correct - but note the context: They did so initially (within the report) merely as a preliminary step of data collection, before determining which data would turn out relevant to their overall objective.
In other words, they did not know when they initially investigated the yellow liquid whether or not it was relevant to the collapse. That means that in their minds, it might have been relevant, which is all that I need to show. And yeah, it's kind of inductive, but I could make it deductive if I tried hard enough.
Based on this post and thread it's clear that you didn't look at the full NIST report. This is unsurprising - it's really long, and, like me, you are not qualified to critically evaluate it (so I wouldn't even recommend you read it). But it's worth noting that this section of NIST's report, if you do look at it - not the FAQ, but the thing the question is referring to from the actual report - is part of an attempted exhaustive survey of observed phenomena of the day, in various categories. The report is actually seems really impressive on this front (although I haven't compared it to comparable reports). In any case, I point this out to say that even your "might be relevant" condition seems wrong. As Oystein says, the material is from "a preliminary step of data collection, before determining which data would turn out relevant to their overall objective" (emphasis mine). This is not even to say that they made a judgment that the data might be relevant. Rather, the goal was simply to collect all available data and go from there - which is responsible scientific practice, even though you collect lots of things that aren't even prima facie relevant. So your premises 1 and 2 are actually false at worst, and misleading at best, since they don't distinguish between data collection and further investigation.
"didn't look at" really should be "didn't read in full" or maybe just "didn't read the parts relevant to your own views"
Are you saying that NIST collected data about the yellow liquid, even though they already knew it wasn't relevant?
"Are you saying that NIST collected data about the yellow liquid, even though they already knew it wasn't relevant?"
No. I'm saying that this section of the NIST report involves a cataloging of observed phemonomena of the day in, on, near, and regarding the buildings in general - presumably, to then be sorted through for relevance, or referred to when answering common questions from the public.
But maybe I'm wrong?
I still don't get the distinction you're trying to make. NIST collected data "in, on, near, and regarding the buildings in general...." So when the collected data on the yellow liquid did they already know that it wasn't relevant to the initiation of the collapse?
It was really Oystein's distinction, but I realized that it fit well with how the NIST report is constructed.
"So when they collected data on the yellow liquid did they already know that it wasn't relevant to the initiation of the collapse?"
No. They neither knew it was not that it wasn't relevant. But my point is: it's not that they thought it "might be" relevant, as a substantive judgment. Rather, the process was: collect and catalog the observed phenomena of the day, and then come up with a theory, investigating further where deemed necessary.
(For someone interested in challening NIST, the rational thing to do here is either (i) read the entire NIST report or (ii) email one or two of many people who worked in the investigation, whose contact information is public)
No, the rational thing to do is to understand the meaning of the word "might." If NIST neither knew it was or was not relevant, then as far as NIST knew, it might be relevant, which is why it should be (and was) part of their data collection.
Now once they decided it was molten aluminum, we can understand why they thought it was not relevant. But as even Oystein admitted (the only non-Truther I know of to do so), NIST has a burden of proof regarding their claim that it was molten aluminum.
"which is why it should be (and was) part of their data collection."
I'm saying something even weaker: it should part of their data collection simply because it was an observed phenomenon coming from the building.
As for the further claims, since the experts at and working with NIST evidently think the phenomenon was fairly unremarkable given the elements in the planes and building, they didn't investigate it further. (As cursory Google searching seems to reveal, apparently it's a common enough phenomenon in a variety of contexts, e.g. broken powerlines.) And a physicist's failure to reproduce the phenomenon in a Youtube video isn't sufficient to undermine this sort of judgment.
But since I'm not an expert, I'm not familiar enough with the sort of literature or expert experience (say, metallurgists) that would be relevant to this question. If one is interested in challenging NIST here, one should contact such people and ask them about it. And then pursue it further, as one deems necessary.
Yes, let's ask metallurgists what they think, bemoan the fact that Truthers don't believe them, then disagree with them, as Chris Mohr did. Or let's ask Thomas Eagar what he thinks on National Geographic, a show that set out to disprove Truther claims, and have him give an entirely different explanation from NIST. Yes, these are far better methods than asking anyone for peer reviewed papers or clear experiments.
How long are you going to go on repeating the same absurd things, JDB?
By the way, why didn't National Geographic just do a simple experiment to show that aluminum with organic materials can look like yellow liquid?
Now once they decided it was molten aluminum, we can understand why they thought it was not relevant."
Wrong. They decided it was not relevant because it had nothing to do with collapse initiation. To put it differently: The most probable initiation sequence that NIST decided upon after evaluationg all the available evidence, including the yellow flow, does not include in any way the yellow flow.
Hence: a priori, the yellow flow might have been relevant in NIST's view. But the final report is out, we know exactly what NIST determined, and so we know for a certain fact that NIST did absolutely NOT consider the flow relevant.
Do you understand this distinction between a priori and actuality? You see, before I was born, I might have grown up to be the handsomest man in the world. But, as I am 45 years old, the verdict is out that I am not. The fact that my father's a priori assessment flew high is no longer relevant.
NB: Yes, I am the JREF Oystein. I stayed away from most internet activity for half a year for personal reasons and am only taking a short vacation from this absence.
What I'm recommending here is that one ask experts about what the relevant "literature or expert experience" is on this topic - not that one just ask experts: "What was this material?", which seems to be what you think I'm saying.
Oystein: Wrong. They decided it was not relevant because it had nothing to do with collapse initiation. To put it differently: The most probable initiation sequence that NIST decided upon after evaluationg all the available evidence, including the yellow flow, does not include in any way the yellow flow.
You mean they decided that even if the yellow flow was thermate, that thermate had nothing to do with collapse initiation sequence?
NB: Yes, I am the JREF Oystein. I stayed away from most internet activity for half a year for personal reasons and am only taking a short vacation from this absence.
Welcome back, even if it is for a brief period.
JDB: What I'm recommending here is that one ask experts about what the relevant "literature or expert experience" is on this topic - not that one just ask experts: "What was this material?", which seems to be what you think I'm saying.
So now you want us to ask experts what the authoritative literature or experience says? In other words, peer review (or textbooks) or clear experiments (or past experience). I think we can agree on that.
Meanwhile, why do you think it is that National Geographic didn't just do a simple experiment to show that it could be molten aluminum?
"So now you want us to ask experts what the authoritative literature or experience says? In other words, peer review (or textbooks) or clear experiments (or past experience). I think we can agree on that."
Perhaps we agree here. But my position is not my position "now", but... always. Why you keep misunderstanding my position is unclear to me, as I've explained it so many times that you've accused me of offering mantras. Expert guidance is helpful to laypersons navigating expert disputes for a variety of reasons - not simply pronouncing on some particular question (<---which wouldn't even be helpful if one's goal is to navigate an expert dispute!). The main helpful possibilities I've referred to in our debates are (i) catching typical lay errors in thinking; and (ii) explaining what the basis is for some particular judgment (even if the expert in question disagrees with it). I don't think I've ever said that you just ask experts to say from their armchairs what the phenomenon actually was - as I mention above, that wouldn't be helpful in this sort of context.
(So it could be, for instance, that the widespread, well-attested experience of metallurgists is that molten aluminum can appear this way under comparable conditions. If this is the case, then it's understandable why a Youtube video of a physicist isn't enough to warrant further study.)
"Meanwhile, why do you think it is that National Geographic didn't just do a simple experiment to show that it could be molten aluminum?"
I still haven't investigated the National Geographic controversy (assuming there is a genuine controversy). But, prima facie, your question sounds like a great one for an expert... say, an expert working with National Geographic.
Of course, the answer to the National Geographic question could be as boring as: often, pop-science is shitty.
JDB: So it could be, for instance, that the widespread, well-attested experience of metallurgists is that molten aluminum can appear this way under comparable conditions. If this is the case, then it's understandable why a Youtube video of a physicist isn't enough to warrant further study.)
Yes, and it could be that the well-attested experience of zoologists is that pigs can fly, but....
I still haven't investigated the National Geographic controversy (assuming there is a genuine controversy). But, prima facie, your question sounds like a great one for an expert... say, an expert working with National Geographic.
If you watched the NG special that I linked to in the next post, then you would see that NG consulted experts and had them conduct experiments regarding the softening of steel and whether thermite could cut steel beams. But when it came to the question of what the yellow flow was, all they did was consult Thomas Eagar, who said it was a thermitic reaction of molten aluminum with other materials in the tower. No experiment was done to confirm his opinion. No experiment was done to confirm NIST's differing opinion of molten aluminum mixed with burnt organic materials. Why no experiment? It seems likely that the experts told them that no experiment could confirm either opinion. I realize that this is only an argument from silence, but in this case, where NG spared no expense to try to disprove Truther claims, it strikes me as a very strong argument from silence.
Of course, the answer to the National Geographic question could be as boring as: often, pop-science is shitty.
Yes, the experiments that NG had their experts perform were indeed very shitty, but this did not stop them from performing them. This just strengthens the argument that they could not come up with even very shitty experiments to explain away the yellow flow.
Regardless, when Mohr rejects his own experts opinion, and when anti-Truther Eagar offers a differing explanation from NIST, and NG can't come up with an experiment to discredit Truthers, I suggest that if you want to disbelieve that the yellow flow was thermite, then it's time that you consult the experts.
"Yes, and it could be that the well-attested experience of zoologists is that pigs can fly, but...."
I actually think this is an interesting example, which highlights how this sort of thing goes. If this was the well-attested experience of zoologists, then it would greatly put into question the legitimacy of zoology. It would be positive evidence that zoologists are systematically epistemically corrupted in someway. I don't think possible colors of molten aluminum in different conditions is comparable. Also, it remains that it takes more than a physicist doing something on his webcam or whatever to bring this into question. Of course, all this is speculative - maybe NIST had some other basis for their assertion.
On Eager, it would be worthwhile to email him and ask (i) whether he intended his judgment to be in contrast with NIST and (ii) why he (or NIST) thinks one doesn't need an experiment to show the possibility of molten aluminum appearing this way.
"[W]hen Mohr rejects his own experts opinion, and when anti-Truther Eagar offers a differing explanation from NIST, and NG can't come up with an experiment to discredit Truthers, I suggest that if you want to disbelieve that the yellow flow was thermite, then it's time that you consult the experts."
First, Mohr's opinion is not relevant to me in this way, since he isn't an expert. Second, Eagar agrees with NIST that it wasn't thermite, and that the aluminum plus the building contents are sufficient for the phenomenon. That experts can think of multiple non-CD explanations for the phenomenon weakens rather than strengthens trutherism. Third, you haven't shown that NG "can't" come up with an experiment, not that NIST "can't." I've suggested what could be their basis for not needing an experiment. A minimal condition of challenging the official story here would be finding out what this basis is.
A minimal condition for challenging the official story would be noticing that all the anti-Truthers are in a quandary about the question and none of them have offered an experiment refuting Prof. Jones's. By the way, we don't yet know if his experiments were part of his peer reviewed paper. I haven't received a response from the editor, and I'm not sure how to get in touch with Jones. As for emailing Eagar, feel free to do so.
"all the anti-Truthers are in a quandary about the question"
On the contrary, what I've learned from your blog, and from JREF, is that there are far more non-CD explanations available for the phenomenon than I had thought there were (since I was only previously familiar with NIST's response, and the CD view).
"and none of them have offered an experiment refuting Prof. Jones's."
Already addressed, repeatedly. Youtube videos by professors don't need to be addressed. (Peer-reviewed publications of experiments done in the usual way are at least candidates for needing to be addressed.) It could be that the reason for no serious experiments on this is that there already is literature. Or, the experience of the phenomenon is widespread and not therefore not interesting from an experimental perspective. Finding out whether the latter two are the case is what corresponding with experts might help with. That is, if you're interested in challenging the confidence with which experts offer non-CD explanations.
"As for emailing Eagar, feel free to do so."
Since I'm not aware of good grounds for challenging the thesis that the phenomenon involved anything other than non-CD materials within the building, I have no reason to email Eagar (or any other expert) about this matter. You, however, have very good reason to do so, for reasons I've elegantly repeated, as in a mantra.
Regarding the image from this experiment http://eecue.com/c/driveslag
There are so many problems with the "debunker" claims made here:
1. The photos of the poured metal mostly show silvery color.
2. The photo that shows some other color shows reddish color-hue.
3.The famous molten metal pouring from the WTC, that Jones refers to, shows yellow liquid, which means it is much hotter than the reddish stuff shown in your driveslag photo
4. The driveslag experiment is based on a propane gas furnace which is much hotter than any building fire, yet the open fire on 9/11 somehow got the metal a lot hotter than the furnace?
The yellow liquid is still over 1000C/1900F when pouring out in open air so it must have been way beyond that when formed.
One must wonder what could have heated this metal way beyond that, beyond fire temperatures and also hotter than a propane furnace.
No point looking further, but let´s continue:
5. The metal in this computer drive is not at all pure aluminum, and the "contamination" giving the red color is certainly not organic materials, but other metals from the drive! http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/pc/the-weird-and-wonderful-materials-that-make-up-your-pc-1089510#null
= the "aluminum" is actually some aluminum compound further mixed in with other metals!
= Jones´experiment still stands, the aluminum cannot turn yellow because of organic contamination.
Good points, Zugam. I think it's clear that NIST has the burden of proof if they want to maintain that the yellow flow is a mixture of aluminum and organic materials.
Something to learn from this = never trust any "debunking" from a JREF forum. The first thing the experimenters note is that the organics burn off right away and make a toxic smoke, so the NIST explanation and the JREF´ers are debunked right there.
The WTC metal in question was almost certainly not aluminum.
The fact that some obscure compound of aluminum can display a barely noticeable hue for a very brief moment (one snapshot´s worth) is not that interesting.
The interesting question is what was going on at the WTC that was so much hotter than the propane burner(which is much hotter than fire), and got the metal glowing yellow the whole way down?
This website was... how do you say it? Relevant!!
Finally I've found something that helped me. Many thanks!
my blog: groupware software
Post a Comment