9/11 Discussion Thread

Or – what is much worse – you are not honest.

How does calling me a liar and/or a moron establish the validity of your case?

I have not called you a liar and I don't think so either. There are two possibilities why you have written so special posts concerning the molten steel: you have not understood the certainty and significance of the observations or you have been dishonest. I meant the possibility that you have an agenda to write something else than what you really know. Perhaps to denigrate the experts of 911Truth-movement. The validity of my case is only in the observations and metallurgical knowledge.
 
I have not called you a liar and I don't think so either. There are two possibilities why you have written so special posts concerning the molten steel: you have not understood the certainty and significance of the observations or you have been dishonest. I meant the possibility that you have an agenda to write something else than what you really know. Perhaps to denigrate the experts of 911Truth-movement. The validity of my case is only in the observations and metallurgical knowledge.

The truther position is that the colour is a unique signature for steel, right? I'm not so sure. Copper might be a candidate and whatever we are seeing it is unlikely to be one metal in its pure state. How about a mixture of copper/aluminium/ jet fuel/diesel/human fat in varying quantities? Is there a resource you could point me to that indicates what colours we could expect for different concentrations of those mixtures, at various temperatures?

And before I'm convinced by the steel/thermite argument, I'd have to understand why, during this "controlled demolition", we...

a. are seeing these haphazard spurts of steel well before the collapse and

b. are not seeing a hugely increased number of these spurts just prior to collapse?

As an aside (@Hurmanetar) I don't think terms like "moron" help. Is it really moronic to consider that the collapse is unrelated/coincidental to the jet liner impacts? Apart from anything else, it isn't the language of experts.
 
Last edited:
The truther position is that the colour is a unique signature for steel, right? I'm not so sure. Copper might be a candidate and whatever we are seeing it is unlikely to be one metal in its pure state. How about a mixture of copper/aluminium/ jet fuel/diesel/human fat in varying quantities? Is there a resource you could point me to that indicates what colours we could expect for different concentrations of those mixtures, at various temperatures?

And before I'm convinced by the steel/thermite argument, I'd have to understand why, during this "controlled demolition", we...

a. are seeing these haphazard spurts of steel well before the collapse and

b. are not seeing a hugely increased number of these spurts just prior to collapse?

As an aside (@Hurmanetar) I don't think terms like "moron" help. Is it really moronic to consider that the collapse is unrelated/coincidental to the jet liner impacts? Apart from anything else, it isn't the language of experts.

I have a better idea. Why don't you prove your own theory? If you're going to put something forward, you've got to demonstrate that it's a valid idea. It's not up to the rest of the world to prove or disprove your hypotheses.
 
I'll look into that. For now though we can, at least, say that you haven't tested your hypothesis against all the other possible alternatives.

If I did find a mixture that glowed a similar colour when very hot, could I say it is definitely that in the photos? (ie play the truther gambit)
 
The truther position is that the colour is a unique signature for steel, right? I'm not so sure. Copper might be a candidate and whatever we are seeing it is unlikely to be one metal in its pure state. How about a mixture of copper/aluminium/ jet fuel/diesel/human fat in varying quantities? Is there a resource you could point me to that indicates what colours we could expect for different concentrations of those mixtures, at various temperatures?

Well, this is the first post I can remember when you have some details for discussion – fine. There are serious problems in your hypothesis:

1. The rubble consisted mainly of steel beams and aluminum. They are the most probable metals being melted, but for demolition it was necessary to melt only the steel beams.

2. Molten iron oxidizes very well and the reaction produces heat. You know those sparks in steel foundries and in torch cutting. The molten metal flow from the tower did not cool rapidly and it retained its color during the long distance down. There must have been heat produced all the time. The sparks were not visible from the distance. Aluminum and copper do not behave so.

3. Organic material and molten metal do not mix.

And before I'm convinced by the steel/thermite argument, I'd have to understand why, during this "controlled demolition", we...

a. are seeing these haphazard spurts of steel well before the collapse and

b. are not seeing a hugely increased number of these spurts just prior to collapse?

Very easy. Melting steel so that it remains in a pool is a rather slow process and was possible only in preparing the demolition collapse. The molten steel did not necessarily flow out in every place. It is possible there was similar preparing also during the collapse but it could not be seen because of the slowness of the process.

By the way, can you explain the free fall of WTC7 without controlled demolition?
 
And as I said: they either have an agenda to coverup what really happened on 9/11 or are complete morons.

How does that help me, though. How is it that you are not the lying/morons in all this? I'm faced with a group of people whose expertise is unestablished, whose ideas haven't at gained any traction amongst people who are capable of understanding whether an orange-yellow appearing liquid is pathognomonic of "molten steel", and who haven't established that any of the myriad of bizarre conditions and circumstances which would allow for it to be molten steel were present vs. a group of people whose expertise is established who claim that there are several things which could take on that appearance. What about this is supposed to make me take the side of the former group of lying morons, rather than the latter group of lying morons?

It would be so much easier if there was a venue for heated discussion amongst people with established expertise to sort this out for me.

Linda
 
I have not called you a liar and I don't think so either. There are two possibilities why you have written so special posts concerning the molten steel: you have not understood the certainty and significance of the observations...

This.

I don't know the certainty and significance of an orange-yellow appearing liquid. And the established experts indicate that it isn't certain (nor my hasty googling of images of "molten aluminum"). Nor has its significance been established if it is molten steel (i.e. that it could make this appearance under the "controlled demolition" scenarios). Why don't you work on persuading those with the expertise to understand whether your claimed certainty and significance is valid? I can only choose to believe you depending upon factors which are unrelated to its validity (Craig's bullying, your sparkling personality, Hurmaneter's cool avatar, etc.).

Linda
 
First of all, thank you Malf, for asking relevant questions and engaging in a debate over the evidence!!

The truther position is that the colour is a unique signature for steel, right?

Color is a unique signature for temperature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence

Aluminum does emit a tiny amount of dark cherry red visible radiation at its melting temperature of 1220 F; however, the intensity is so low that it cannot be seen in the presence of other light and so it still appears silvery/gray. I think this is because aluminum has very high reflectivity and very low emissivity. Super-heated aluminum would emit visible yellow/white light but then we're back to the same problem of: where did the exceedingly high temperatures come from? The absolute maximum air temperature from the office fires would have been 1800 F. The average air temperature nearest the flames would have been 800F - 1500F depending on the fuel and ventilation. The temperature of most metal materials in the building would be significantly lower than the air temperature due to the heat capacity of the material (amount of heat that can be absorbed per degree temperature increase in the material) and heat transfer away from the material being heated. Also, fires move. They spend about 20-30 minutes consuming local fuel before exhausting it and moving else where. It takes time to heat up large quantities of metal.

So it is not a foregone conclusion that significant quantities of aluminum would have been melted. Next time you go camping take an aluminum can and hold it on a stick in the fire. It won't melt. You have to get a pretty hot fire going and place the can down deep into the very hottest part of the fire for it to melt. If you were to say... lay a 1" thick aluminum rod over the fire it would be even harder to get it to melt because aluminum is such a good conductor of heat (4x better than steel) it would conduct the heat away from the heated area very rapidly. Aluminum is often used for fins on heat transfer units because it is so good at transferring heat away from a hot source.

Nevertheless, liquid aluminum in the temperature range of 1200 F to 1500 F would appear to be silver/gray and that is not what is seen in the videos. We see white/yellow liquid metal which indicates temperatures over 2000 F.

And once again we have plenty of other evidence for large quantities of molten steel in the rubble, so the conclusion that the brightly glowing liquid metal in the videos is steel is the simplest and most reasonable conclusion.

Copper might be a candidate

Copper melts at around 2000 F (over 200 F hotter than the absolute max possible air temp) so you have the same problem of where did extraordinary amount of heat come from? Also, where did such a large quantity of copper come from? And how did it get concentrated in the hottest part of the fire?

How about a mixture of copper/aluminium/ jet fuel/diesel/human fat in varying quantities?

Try mixing that together and see how well that works. Buoyancy works because of varying densities. Wood, carpet, fat, diesel, and kerosene are all much less dense than molten metal. Yes liquid copper and liquid aluminum can be mixed at temps over 2000 F. Jet fuel would float/vaporize and most of it was burned up within the first few minutes of the crash. Kerosene and diesel boil off well below the melting point of aluminum between 300 F and 700 F. Liquified fat would also float and burn off very quickly. It would not mix.

Is there a resource you could point me to that indicates what colours we could expect for different concentrations of those mixtures, at various temperatures?

You can read the NIST report for informa.... wait... no you can't... because they didn't do anything to test their hypothesis... they just pulled it out of their arses because they can't admit to high temperatures or molten steel. Steven Jones did a couple of experiments with wood chips and molten aluminum. The wood chips didn't mix in and the poured aluminum still appeared silver. http://911review.com/articles/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html Others have done similar experiments on YouTube.

You could go to your local scrap metal yard and ask to watch as they melt down the aluminum/trash mixture and pour it into ingots.

And before I'm convinced by the steel/thermite argument,

Why make it an all or nothing proposition? Why not just take each claim made by NIST and analyze it for its truthfulness?

I'd have to understand why, during this "controlled demolition", we...

a. are seeing these haphazard spurts of steel well before the collapse and

b. are not seeing a hugely increased number of these spurts just prior to collapse?

If I recall correctly, the spurts of liquid steel began about 10 min before collapse. Silently cutting the critical steel members and bolts would make it appear as if the towers collapsed without aid of demolition charges. It is possible that a different method was used at impact area. It is also possible that the impact damaged some of the shaped charges allowing the thermite to leak out of the containers. During collapse, the noise would be greater and cover up the sounds of a faster burning charge. Charges probably cut the bolts on each floor as the floor was impacted to give the appearance of a pancake type collapse.

Reverse engineering the specifics of exactly how the demolition was accomplished is not as important as establishing that NIST lied and that the evidence cannot be explained without thermitic charges. If this can be established, then an in depth investigation could be pursued which might shed more light on reverse engineering the specifics.

As an aside (@Hurmanetar) I don't think terms like "moron" help. Is it really moronic to consider that the collapse is unrelated/coincidental to the jet liner impacts? Apart from anything else, it isn't the language of experts.

I avoid calling people morons in a rational intellectual debate. I have not called anyone here a moron... except maybe Oystein since he claims to be an expert... I would love it if 9/11 were purely a rational intellectual debate because 9/11 truthers would undoubtedly win, but the establishment marginalization efforts force the debate to be primarily an emotional one so stiff rhetoric is required to even get people to engage with the evidence.

What would you call the arborologist who mistook a Giant Sequoia for a Canadian Maple?
 
I'll look into that. For now though we can, at least, say that you haven't tested your hypothesis against all the other possible alternatives.

If I did find a mixture that glowed a similar colour when very hot, could I say it is definitely that in the photos? (ie play the truther gambit)

Isn't it generally true that the one making the positive claim carries the burden of proof? NIST is making the positive claim that an aluminum/organics mixture can look like the video evidence. They should back that up. One can come up with all sorts of exotic remotely improbable possibilities to explain the evidence, but it is not up to me to disprove that what looks like molten steel is actually unicorn piss.

The simplest explanation to account for the evidence is molten steel and thermitic incendiaries because molten steel was also observed in the rubble.
 
How does that help me, though. How is it that you are not the lying/morons in all this? I'm faced with a group of people whose expertise is unestablished, whose ideas haven't at gained any traction amongst people who are capable of understanding whether an orange-yellow appearing liquid is pathognomonic of "molten steel", and who haven't established that any of the myriad of bizarre conditions and circumstances which would allow for it to be molten steel were present vs. a group of people whose expertise is established who claim that there are several things which could take on that appearance. What about this is supposed to make me take the side of the former group of lying morons, rather than the latter group of lying morons?

It would be so much easier if there was a venue for heated discussion amongst people with established expertise to sort this out for me.

Linda

No one should rely only on experts to make critical determinations. You need to do some research for yourself.
 
How is that helpful? I can easily find information which contradicts what you say.

Here for example:

http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Linda
Yes, and I can easily find "information" that the earth is 6000 years old debunking evolution.

This link has been provided above (probably by Malf) and I addressed several problems with it. It is just someone else who is an apologist for the official story.

Science > apologetics.

Yes I have referenced it before, but the issues haven't been addressed, other than this sort of addressed:

You can look for information that debunks the debunking. In this case it's not some extremely obscure technical point but rather something easily testable and observable.

So I'm going to cut and paste a section:


The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.

One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...

Moltenal.jpg


Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.

Jones writes:"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"

I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.

What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".

capture7.jpg


The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum.

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
 
Yes, and I can easily find "information" that the earth is 6000 years old debunking evolution.

Exactly. So what's the point of suggesting I go looking for information? I can find information which supports any stupid idea someone has pulled out of their ass. So what?

Linda
 
Sure. And information which debunks the debunking. And on and on it goes.

Instead, I'm looking for information which people who know what they are talking about would regard as valid.

Linda

What are your criteria for deciding who knows what they're talking about? Every time I've looked into something controversial, I've found this to be one of the more difficult questions to answer.
 
Sure. And information which debunks the debunking. And on and on it goes.

Instead, I'm looking for information which people who know what they are talking about would regard as valid.

Linda

How do you know if a person would know what they're talking about? I mean... I think I know what I'm talking about. I have hands on experience with molten steel and aluminum. I work with structural steel every day in my designs. Why don't you think I know what I'm talking about?

Exactly. So what's the point of suggesting I go looking for information? I can find information which supports any stupid idea someone has pulled out of their ass. So what?

When I was 18 I was an enthusiastic YEC. My whole Christian faith hinged on a literal interpretation of Genesis and a 6000 year old earth. Then I joined evcforum.net and engaged in a debate over the evidence. I did some research myself and even though it shook my faith to its core after a month or so of debating the evidence I came to the conclusion the "information" on YEC was seriously flawed and I needed to reevaluate my entire paradigm.

So it is very possible for an individual with a working brain to overcome biases and do some research to come to new paradigm shaking conclusions. I'm just encouraging you to do the same with 9/11.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lhl
Yes I have referenced it before, but the issues haven't been addressed, other than this sort of addressed:



So I'm going to cut and paste a section:


The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.

One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...

Moltenal.jpg


Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.

Jones writes:"This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"

I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.

What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".

capture7.jpg


The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum.

Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

I'll go into more depth later when I'm not on my phone but for now... The picture shows bright yellow droplets after having fallen through the air for several hundred feet. How is that helping his argument? I don't see anything in those pictures that looks like molten aluminum.
 
Sure. And information which debunks the debunking. And on and on it goes.

And you don't know how to break that circle? You must break your dependence on it. You must learn something yourself and know the basic properties of things and processes.

I have understood that you don't watch 9/11 videos. That would be an unwise decision because now you don't know what really has happened. You cannot get that experience from scientific papers. I have watched those videos at least for 300 hours. Now you perhaps think I have been brainwashed by conspiracy theorists. Naturally I have watched also innumerable debunking videos and have been able to compare their quality with AE911-videos and I can tell you the science is on the AE side. As a mechanical engineer and metallurgist I have seen that clearly.

Instead, I'm looking for information which people who know what they are talking about would regard as valid.

It seems you are too dependent on formal authority. You must understand yourself what substance is valid.
 
Back
Top