9/11 Discussion Thread

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.
That's a good question.

The source should have some indication of standing - either an indication of training and experience in the direct (direct, not indirect - "I'm a structural engineer with 15 years of experience investigating skyscraper failures", not "I'm a mechanical engineer who's watched a lot of 911 Truth videos") subject under question, and/or an indication that they are conveying the consensus from those who do.

I look for sources which are neutral rather than ones who have a particular agenda. I look for information which was written for a different purpose than the one under consideration.

I look at the academic standing of the source - not in the sense of authority, but in the sense of the extent to which the idea will have been vetted to make it there.

I look at how topics on which I have expertise are handled. For example, if your method of looking into controversial subjects doesn't lead you to recognize that HIV denialism is nonsense, you're methods (and therefore your opinion) are useless.

Linda
 
That's a good question.

The source should have some indication of standing - either an indication of training and experience in the direct (direct, not indirect - "I'm a structural engineer with 15 years of experience investigating skyscraper failures", not "I'm a mechanical engineer who's watched a lot of 911 Truth videos") subject under question, and/or an indication that they are conveying the consensus from those who do.

I look for sources which are neutral rather than ones who have a particular agenda. I look for information which was written for a different purpose than the one under consideration.

I look at the academic standing of the source - not in the sense of authority, but in the sense of the extent to which the idea will have been vetted to make it there.

I look at how topics on which I have expertise are handled. For example, if your method of looking into controversial subjects doesn't lead you to recognize that HIV denialism is nonsense, you're methods (and therefore your opinion) are useless.

Linda
Thank you for your answer. It does appear to be a logical way to approach this, but it carries certain assumptions which can lead you down the same path every time, right or wrong.

In particular, you have an assumption that neutral sources exist and that those sources are, for lack of a better word, establishment based sources. This generally holds true for non controversial topics, but my experience is that the more controversial a topic is, the less reliable the establishment sources become. This is because people who are invested in an organization have the most to lose when they "stray from the pack." Which side you are on becomes highly political, regardless of the truth. An establishment source can never be truly neutral on any controversial topic. They have skin in the game. Status works against neutrality on controversial topics.

That has to be taken into account when evaluating an establishment source. They're just another voice with an agenda. My experience is that on controversial topics you have to look outside the establishment for truly neutral voices. These are typically retired or self employed people who have taken interest in a topic and have no outside forces pressuring them to act a certain way. (Speaking from personal experience, when you're self employed, your clients don't care what you do on your own time. They just want their job done properly.)

If you're evaluating controversial topics with your own expertise and using it as a guide, then you must acknowledge that other people do the same with their own skill set and that this is a valid criteria regardless of whether you agree with them. Otherwise you will veer into hypocritical territory.
 
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?
Because your viewpoint doesn't seem to have gained any real traction among people who know as much or much more about the subject.

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.
I know this is possible. It has already happened with me numerous times. We just mean something entirely different by "do some research".

Linda
 
And you don't know how to break that circle?
I do. I was just pointing out that the advice given ("look at videos debunking the debunking of the debunking of the debunking...") does not.

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.
I have nothing in particular against watching videos (other than they are a particularly inefficient way to gather information). My concern is that, due to the nature of how these things are produced, even after I watch the videos, I don't know what really has happened, given that agenda-driven videos also won't be a fair and accurate representation of the events.

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.
Okay. Now what could you accomplish if metallurgist mechanical engineers, as a group, spoke up in the academic and professional arena? What could you accomplish if AE911 Truth had pretty much every architect and engineer on board?

It seems you are too dependent on formal authority.
I think you need to ask yourself why you think "people who know what they are talking about" is equivalent to "formal authority"?

Linda
 
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. My only disagreement would be your assumption that I wouldn't. ;)

Thank you for your answer. It does appear to be a logical way to approach this, but it carries certain assumptions which can lead you down the same path every time, right or wrong.

In particular, you have an assumption that neutral sources exist and that those sources are, for lack of a better word, establishment based sources. This generally holds true for non controversial topics, but my experience is that the more controversial a topic is, the less reliable the establishment sources become. This is because people who are invested in an organization have the most to lose when they "stray from the pack." Which side you are on becomes highly political, regardless of the truth. An establishment source can never be truly neutral on any controversial topic. They have skin in the game. Status works against neutrality on controversial topics.
I pretty much agree, except for your assumption that I would think that "neutral sources" = "establishment-based sources". For the reasons you gave, I don't look for establishment-based sources in the first place. I look for sources operating in a high-validity environment. It happens that many establishment-based sources do so, but it's "validity" not "establishment" which distinguishes them.

That has to be taken into account when evaluating an establishment source. They're just another voice with an agenda. My experience is that on controversial topics you have to look outside the establishment for truly neutral voices. These are typically retired or self employed people who have taken interest in a topic and have no outside forces pressuring them to act a certain way. (Speaking from personal experience, when you're self employed, your clients don't care what you do on your own time. They just want their job done properly.)
Yup, that pretty much describes why I'm here.

If you're evaluating controversial topics with your own expertise and using it as a guide, then you must acknowledge that other people do the same with their own skill set and that this is a valid criteria regardless of whether you agree with them. Otherwise you will veer into hypocritical territory.
My main criticism is that people draw their 'information' from low-validity environments, and that some are much too ready to believe their skill-sets are adequate. Look at the flak I got for admitting where my skill-set is inadequate? That's not a good sign.

Linda
 
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. My only disagreement would be your assumption that I wouldn't. ;)



I pretty much agree, except for your assumption that I would think that "neutral sources" = "establishment-based sources". For the reasons you gave, I don't look for establishment-based sources in the first place. I look for sources operating in a high-validity environment. It happens that many establishment-based sources do so, but it's "validity" not "establishment" which distinguishes them.



Yup, that pretty much describes why I'm here.



My main criticism is that people draw their 'information' from low-validity environments, and that some are much too ready to believe their skill-sets are adequate. Look at the flak I got for admitting where my skill-set is inadequate? That's not a good sign.

Linda
Can you point me to any topic where you have taken sides against establishment sources? I can only base my assumptions about you on what you write and so far you appear to be siding with the establishment 100% of the time. This naturally leads me to believe that you place what appears to me to be extraordinary faith in establishment sources.

You believe that your skill set is adequate, why should other people not do the same? I don't know what you mean by "low validity." This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for you to disregard sources you disagree with. You seem to arbitrarily dismiss sources on the basis of the conclusions they reach, not how they get there. Certainly Hurmanetar has demonstrated expertise in metallurgy? What specific reasons do you have for dismissing his expertise?
 
I'll respond to this now line by line, but I'd appreciate it if you did some critical thinking and offered a response to the very long post I made previously addressing your questions as well as this one below. Your response to an argument can't always be to just ignore everything said and post someone else's argument.

For reference here is a compilation of clips of the molten steel.

I'll refer to this incandescence color chart because it gives temps in Fahrenheit: http://www.smex.net.au/reference/SteelColours02.php
You can also refer to the one on Wikipedia which gives temps in Celsius:


The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center.
If you look at the incandescence color chart you'll find that bright yellow corresponds to temperatures over 2000 F.

Right where the molten metal exits the building and before air has had a chance to cool and form a skin around it, it is almost white hot which indicates temperatures over 2300 F. We also see a white flash whenever the molten metal splatters the side of the building. This is because the air-cooled outer skin is smashed exposing the hotter inner liquid. I took a screen shot at 6 seconds on this video:



This is evidence of metal temperatures in excess of 2300 F.

Metal temperatures over 1700 F would be impossible without incendiaries. As I stated above, the absolute max air temp for office fires is 1800 F as stated by NIST. Average air temps in the flames would have been 800 F to 1500 F depending upon availability of fuel and oxygen. The color of flames indicates temperature and we see cherry red/orange flames. Actual metal temperatures would be lower than air temperatures for reasons given in my previous post.

They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
Sure. But the key here is "at higher temperatures" ...impossibly high temperatures above the maximum possible air/flame temp of the office fires.

As I stated above, Aluminum in the 1200 F to 1700 F temperature range will appear silver in broad daylight due to its low emissivity and high reflectivity.

The fact that we see the cooler droplets emitting bright orange and red colors is an indication that we are not looking at aluminum because there is not enough light emitted at those temperatures from aluminum to be seen in broad daylight.



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.
This looks like a mixture of yellow, orange, and red to me. As I said above, Aluminum wouldn't emit enough light in the orange and red temp range to be seen in broad daylight.

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".
There's no reason for him to insinuate that Jones tampers with the evidence. It is not clear why he makes this insinuation.



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.
The smaller drops are at the limits of the resolution of this image yet they still seem to be emitting light. I provided higher resolution shots above showing temps in excess of 2300 F after having fallen through the air several hundred feet. Again, at the top of the fall we see white/yellow indicating impossibly high temps. We also see as it cools some orange/red which are not seen in Aluminum in broad daylight.

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow...Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. ...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.
First of all, his assumption that metal temps did not exceeded 1650 F is contradicted by the bright yellow/white colors as discussed above.

Secondly, he assumes the office fires are the only possible heat source and precludes any possibility of incendiaries. Yes, if the office fires were hot enough to melt steel, collapse would have occurred before any steel could have melted, but no one is saying that office fires melted the steel. Yet we see temps in excess of 2300 F. We see plenty of other evidence for molten steel. Therefore, there had to be a different localized source of extreme heat. The simplest explanation is that incendiaries (thermite) melted the steel at key locations and generated molten iron as a byproduct of the reaction. Shortly after this was observed the collapse began.

He starts with his conclusion and works backwards ignoring evidence along the way. This is apologetics and not science.

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.
Aluminum oxide forms an extremely thin layer (about 4 nm thick) on exposed Aluminum. Aluminum being poured does not glow.

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
We see a very large amount of molten metal pouring from a concentrated area. Did someone remove all the glass windows and pile them up on the fire? No... the windows would have either shattered or melted in place. They wouldn't have magically gathered together and run out one corner.

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.
Good assumption. Copper doesn't melt until over 2000 F and you'd have to explain where the large amount of copper came from.

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.
Aluminum oxide slag floats to the top and doesn't mix with the molten aluminum so that when the aluminum is poured it still looks silver. For example:


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.
See picture above. The Aluminum oxide clearly floats and doesn't mix.

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.
A very bad assumption as explained above.

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.
Once again we see the range from white to yellow to orange to red. The white/yellow indicates temps that are too high for the official fire explanation. The orange/red indicates the droplets were not aluminum. There is no evidence that these materials could become "entrained" in a flow of aluminum and cause the droplets to glow.

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.
We don't see the flow turn dark. It remains glowing all the way down. It cools from white hot to orange/red over several hundred feet of descent through the air... but this is just the outside of the droplets. As shown above, when the droplets impact the side of the towers they reveal 2300 F + degree temperatures inside.

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature.
Again he is starting with his conclusion and ignoring all contradictory evidence INCLUDING all the molten steel and evidence of melted/eroded beams found in the rubble.
 
You believe that your skill set is adequate, why should other people not do the same? I don't know what you mean by "low validity." This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for you to disregard sources you disagree with. You seem to arbitrarily dismiss sources on the basis of the conclusions they reach, not how they get there. Certainly Hurmanetar has demonstrated expertise in metallurgy? What specific reasons do you have for dismissing his expertise?
All due respect, fls has made hundreds of posts on the topic of validity. It is the focus of the field of meta-research and there are institutions devoted to identifying methods that increase or decrease validity. A number of papers have been posted on this site (at times by posters who see them as reasons to denounce science rather than as the end result of many years of developing meta-research techniques that have identified areas of concern with a view to improving science going forward). You've been linked to the Cochrane Collaboration many times, and their handbook. I've also posted a few times the relatively new Meta-Research Innovation Centre at Stanford. There is currently a global initiative going on to improve research practices such as encouraging pre-registration of studies (and particularly aimed at the pharmaceutical industry).

If you had read even a smattering of the wealth of information out there on these topics you would see that identifying the most valid, reliable environments don't break down between establishment/non-establishment grounds.

Now, we don't all have time to look at all the information, and we all have our interests. Just as I've never been interested enough in 911 to really research it, I don't expect everyone to be interested in making the effort to look into research methodology in depth. But nor do I make the assumption that the issues in 911 are simple, black and white. From my brief perusal of what's out there I can see it is extremely complex.

My suggestion is that you consider whether it might be the case that your view of research methodology, particularly recent advances in it, are also lacking and that the issues are as not simple, black and white as you give the impression of presuming.
 
Can you point me to any topic where you have taken sides against establishment sources?
A few examples...

I don't believe in God. I disagree with the policy of a multitude of governments of excluding some drugs from regulation with respect to manufacturing, safety and efficacy. I have spoken out against Organized Skeptics with respect to tone, misrepresentations of sting operations, whether the MDC is performed in good faith (among others). I have challenged the conventional wisdom that rayon chenille will worm if woven in a structure with 5-thread floats (okay, you may not have seen that particular debate, since it took place on a different forum, but boy did I get in trouble for that).

I can only base my assumptions about you on what you write and so far you appear to be siding with the establishment 100% of the time. This naturally leads me to believe that you place what appears to me to be extraordinary faith in establishment sources.
Then you haven't accounted for your faulty heuristics (availability bias, confirmation bias, etc.)

You believe that your skill set is adequate, why should other people not do the same?
I was thinking more along the lines of whether it was true.

I don't know what you mean by "low validity."
This (I referenced it earlier in the thread):

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/64/6/515/

This seems to me to be an arbitrary way for you to disregard sources you disagree with. You seem to arbitrarily dismiss sources on the basis of the conclusions they reach, not how they get there.
Not in the least...for example, one of the biggest problems I have with Organized Skeptics is how they get to their conclusions, even though it turns out we concur on the bulk of them.

Certainly Hurmanetar has demonstrated expertise in metallurgy? What specific reasons do you have for dismissing his expertise?
He has? Why can I find seeming experts who contradict what he says? Why isn't his perspective held by the bulk of mechanical engineers, as far as I can tell?

Linda
 
My main criticism is that people draw their 'information' from low-validity environments, and that some are much too ready to believe their skill-sets are adequate. Look at the flak I got for admitting where my skill-set is inadequate? That's not a good sign.
Linda... I believe in you! Your skill set is fully adequate to determine that John Gross from NIST is being dishonest!!! I know it is against your constitution to watch anything on YouTube, but for the love of everything sacred please just watch this one video and tell me if you still think John Gross from NIST is a trustworthy authoritative source! Note that during the clip he asks the questioner to provide him some information on the molten steel, then later he refused to give this man his email address. Note his body language. He is clearly uncomfortable and anxious with the question. He says that he knows of no evidence for molten steel when there is PLENTY of evidence for it. This is the man that YOU TRUST as an authoritative expert on the subject.

 
Linda... I believe in you! Your skill set is fully adequate to determine that John Gross from NIST is being dishonest!!! I know it is against your constitution to watch anything on YouTube, but for the love of everything sacred please just watch this one video and tell me if you still think John Gross from NIST is a trustworthy authoritative source! Note that during the clip he asks the questioner to provide him some information on the molten steel, then later he refused to give this man his email address. Note his body language. He is clearly uncomfortable and anxious with the question. He says that he knows of no evidence for molten steel when there is PLENTY of evidence for it. This is the man that YOU TRUST as an authoritative expert on the subject.
I agree that his body language is excrable.

I don't think "gotcha" questioning is ever particularly valid with respect to sorting out details.

None of the testimony confirmed a "large pool of molten steel", in the sense of a liquid pool (which is what it looks like Gross was getting at). Most of it seemed to be about temperatures hot enough to deform and fuse steel and other metals, in the rubble (which as far as I know, was included in the NIST report), and reports of some liquid metals. But there wasn't anything in the video about something found which had been liquified and analyzed and confirmed as steel.

A temperature of 2600 F was mentioned (if I heard right?) on the NASA pictures. I don't know for sure what the questioner was referring to (another reason videos tend to be unhelpful), but I found this from NASA data which shows a temperature as high as 1341 F.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

I don't know anything about John Gross. But I don't see how this video shows him being dishonest.

Linda
 
I agree that his body language is excrable.
I learned a new word.

I don't think "gotcha" questioning is ever particularly valid with respect to sorting out details.
It is not "gotcha" questioning. It is a very legitimate question. NIST says the absolute max flame/air temperature was 1800 F. We have a lot of evidence that temps exceeded that as well as evidence for thermate. It is completely acceptable to ask if NIST took this evidence into account and investigated the possibility of explosives or incendiaries. In fact it is required by the National Fire Protection code that investigators check for the possibility of incendiaries or explosives. NIST was negligent by not checking into this, yet Gross laughs it off like this is a silly idea.

None of the testimony confirmed a "large pool of molten steel", in the sense of a liquid pool (which is what it looks like Gross was getting at).
There is no need to focus on the term "large pool". Any evidence of molten steel or even evidence of temperatures exceeding 1800 F would falsify the official explanation. A small amount of molten steel would cool and solidify relatively quickly. But we have testimony of molten steel days after collapse indicating a significantly sizable presence of molten steel. In the video we see:

1) At 0:10, a picture of a beam being pulled from the wreckage that is dripping liquid and glowing white hot. As I noted above, white hot coloring indicates temperatures exceeding 2300 F. Considering this occurred days or weeks after the collapse, temps at time of collapse would have been significantly higher.

2) At 1:03, Fire fighters say, "you'd see molten steel running down the channel rails... like you were in a foundry... like it was lava from a volcano." This indicates a significantly large quantity of liquid steel.

3) At 1:15, "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out."

4) At 1:20, a large artifact of molten steel mixed with concrete was recovered and was on display.

5) At 1:40, the bent steel members indicate they were plastically deformed above 2000 F. It takes an enormous amount of heat to raise thick steel members of that size to 2000 F. The fires were burning at 800 F to 1500 F so the fires would have actually cooled off the beams.

6) At 2:26 we hear testimony of steel beams pulled from the wreckage and bursting into flames when exposed to fresh oxygen. This indicates temperatures exceeding 1500 F (815 C).

7) At 3:00 we hear testimony that the deeper they dug the hotter it got and it was "probably 1500 degrees". This is days later and oxygen starved fires cannot reach these temps so the wreckage was still cooling yet exceeding 1500 F.

8) At 3:50: "At one point I think they were about 2800 degrees" which is above the melting temperature of steel.

9) At 3:52: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from building 6."

10) At 3:59 Rudy Guliani says, "There were fires of 2000 F below the ground."

11) At 4:40 "Out on the rubble its still 1100 degrees. The guys' boots just melt within a few hours." NIST says the HOTTEST the steel ever got was 1100 F, and here we are well into the cleanup where the surface of the rubble is still 1100 F.

Most of it seemed to be about temperatures hot enough to deform and fuse steel and other metals
Which exceeds 2000 F and falsifies the official explanation...

(which as far as I know, was included in the NIST report)
It was not included at all in the body of the report. NIST analyzed 236 pieces of recovered structural steel which represented between 0.25% and 0.5% of all the structural steel in the building. Based on those 236 pieces they concluded steel temps did not exceed 600 C (1112 F). Now scroll up and look at that color chart again. 600 C is very deep dark red. We have a lot of evidence that temps far exceeded that.

John Gross did gather two pieces of structural steel that had the ends melted off. They showed evidence of very high temperature corrosion/erosion and sulfidation and relegated them to Appendix C and offered no explanation. This is Gross negligence. Here is Gross posing with the steel beams that were melted away at the ends:



Another shot of that beam:


http://wtfrly.com/2015/01/31/911-truth-nist-no-molten-metal-guy-melted-steel/

FEMA's appendix C which analyzed these pieces concluded that sulfidation lowered the melting temperature of the steel to 1800 F and the liquefied steel was subsequently eroded under pressure. Thermate is thermite with sulfur added to lower the melting point of steel so that it is more easily cut.

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1800 F results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel."
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

But there wasn't anything in the video about something found which had been liquefied and analyzed and confirmed as steel.
Maybe the solidified lumps of molten steel was part of the 99.7% of steel that NIST didn't consider in its investigation.

Maybe if NIST could have admitted that all the evidence given above pointed to the presence of molten steel they would have looked for more of it to analyze. Instead it appears they were only focused on analyzing identifiable beams in order to generate some fine-sounding speculation regarding the onset of collapse.

A temperature of 2600 F was mentioned (if I heard right?) on the NASA pictures. I don't know for sure what the questioner was referring to (another reason videos tend to be unhelpful), but I found this from NASA data which shows a temperature as high as 1341 F. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Yes, 5 days after collapse surface temperatures of 1341 F are extraordinary. This is saying the surface temperatures are 240 F hotter than NIST's estimated max steel beam temperature.

I don't know anything about John Gross. But I don't see how this video shows him being dishonest.
Okay I know you are hesitant to form any kind of a determination so maybe "dishonest" is a step too big for you. How about this: Do you find his response lacking? Do you think the evidence for molten steel and the temps in excess of the fire temperatures warrant further investigation? The FEMA report on the sulfidated and melted steel beam said further investigation was warranted. Why was no further investigation performed?
 
Last edited:
I'll refer to this incandescence color chart because it gives temps in Fahrenheit: http://www.smex.net.au/reference/SteelColours02.php
You can also refer to the one on Wikipedia which gives temps in Celsius:




If you look at the incandescence color chart you'll find that bright yellow corresponds to temperatures over 2000 F.



Right where the molten metal exits the building and before air has had a chance to cool and form a skin around it, it is almost white hot which indicates temperatures over 2300 F. We also see a white flash whenever the molten metal splatters the side of the building. This is because the air-cooled outer skin is smashed exposing the hotter inner liquid.

The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.

The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.



Metal temperatures over 1700 F would be impossible without incendiaries. As I stated above, the absolute max air temp for office fires is 1800 F as stated by NIST. Average air temps in the flames would have been 800 F to 1500 F depending upon availability of fuel and oxygen. The color of flames indicates temperature and we see cherry red/orange flames. Actual metal temperatures would be lower than air temperatures for reasons given in my previous post.
Perhaps not. Remember, we are seeing this right where the jet liner cane to a halt - check the bowing of the building, and sagging of floors. (I guess that's just coincidence, right ;)):






Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm


1100C in 20mins... (thats 2012F)





Sure. But the key here is "at higher temperatures" ...impossibly high temperatures above the maximum possible air/flame temp of the office fires
See above.

As I stated above, Aluminum in the 1200 F to 1700 F temperature range will appear silver in broad daylight due to its low emissivity and high reflectivity.

The fact that we see the cooler droplets emitting bright orange and red colors is an indication that we are not looking at aluminum because there is not enough light emitted at those temperatures from aluminum to be seen in broad daylight.






This looks like a mixture of yellow, orange, and red to me. As I said above, Aluminum wouldn't emit enough light in the orange and red temp range to be seen in broad daylight.
See above. And this:

It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Wood might have affected the color...



This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here.





The smaller drops are at the limits of the resolution of this image yet they still seem to be emitting light. I provided higher resolution shots above showing temps in excess of 2300 F after having fallen through the air several hundred feet. Again, at the top of the fall we see white/yellow indicating impossibly high temps. We also see as it cools some orange/red which are not seen in Aluminum in broad daylight.



First of all, his assumption that metal temps did not exceeded 1650 F is contradicted by the bright yellow/white colors as discussed above.

Secondly, he assumes the office fires are the only possible heat source and precludes any possibility of incendiaries. Yes, if the office fires were hot enough to melt steel, collapse would have occurred before any steel could have melted, but no one is saying that office fires melted the steel. Yet we see temps in excess of 2300 F. We see plenty of other evidence for molten steel. Therefore, there had to be a different localized source of extreme heat. The simplest explanation is that incendiaries (thermite) melted the steel at key locations and generated molten iron as a byproduct of the reaction. Shortly after this was observed the collapse began.
I think I've already addressed all this above.








Aluminum oxide slag floats to the top and doesn't mix with the molten aluminum so that when the aluminum is poured it still looks silver. For example:




See picture above. The Aluminum oxide clearly floats and doesn't mix.
Nobody is talking about a controlled pour of pure aluminium as shown in this photo.




Once again we see the range from white to yellow to orange to red. The white/yellow indicates temps that are too high for the official fire explanation. The orange/red indicates the droplets were not aluminum. There is no evidence that these materials could become "entrained" in a flow of aluminum and cause the droplets to glow.



We don't see the flow turn dark. It remains glowing all the way down. It cools from white hot to orange/red over several hundred feet of descent through the air... but this is just the outside of the droplets. As shown above, when the droplets impact the side of the towers they reveal 2300 F + degree temperatures inside.



Again he is starting with his conclusion and ignoring all contradictory evidence INCLUDING all the molten steel and evidence of melted/eroded beams found in the rubble.
I think we've dealt with this already. You're over fixating on black body radiation...
 
The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.

In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.

The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.





Perhaps not. Remember, we are seeing this right where the jet liner cane to a halt - check the bowing of the building, and sagging of floors. (I guess that's just coincidence, right ;)):






Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm


1100C in 20mins... (thats 2012F)







See above.



See above. And this:

It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Wood might have affected the color...



This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here.







I think I've already addressed all this above.










Nobody is talking about a controlled pour of pure aluminium as shown in this photo.






I think we've dealt with this already. You're over fixating on black body radiation...
Thank you for responding with some arguments! ...even though they're mostly hand waving and speculation. I'll address them when I have time.

But really quick... The fire falls shots are long exposures taken at least 30 min after sunset and don't add anything to the argument.

Also, can you say "black body radiation" one more time? :D
 
It is not "gotcha" questioning. It is a very legitimate question.
I don't know what the context of the talk is, but it doesn't appear to be a forum for asking these kinds of questions (hence the body language). The questioner obviously wishes to put Gross on the spot. But whether or not someone reacts well or poorly when put on the spot tells you little to nothing about the legitimacy of the questions/answers. If addressing the legitimacy of the questions/answers is the purpose, then this was the wrong forum. So one has to ask what the questioner thought he was going to accomplish?

NIST says the absolute max flame/air temperature was 1800 F. We have a lot of evidence that temps exceeded that as well as evidence for thermate. It is completely acceptable to ask if NIST took this evidence into account and investigated the possibility of explosives or incendiaries. In fact it is required by the National Fire Protection code that investigators check for the possibility of incendiaries or explosives.
I don't know whether any of that is or is not the case.

There is no need to focus on the term "large pool". Any evidence of molten steel or even evidence of temperatures exceeding 1800 F would falsify the official explanation. A small amount of molten steel would cool and solidify relatively quickly. But we have testimony of molten steel…

None of that seems to be valid - it all seems to be guesses as to what they were observing. days after collapse indicating a significantly sizable presence of molten steel. In the video we see:

1) At 0:10, a picture of a beam being pulled from the wreckage that is dripping liquid and glowing white hot. As I noted above, white hot coloring indicates temperatures exceeding 2300 F. Considering this occurred days or weeks after the collapse, temps at time of collapse would have been significantly higher.

2) At 1:03, Fire fighters say, "you'd see molten steel running down the channel rails... like you were in a foundry... like it was lava from a volcano." This indicates a significantly large quantity of liquid steel.

3) At 1:15, "The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug out."

4) At 1:20, a large artifact of molten steel mixed with concrete was recovered and was on display.

5) At 1:40, the bent steel members indicate they were plastically deformed above 2000 F. It takes an enormous amount of heat to raise thick steel members of that size to 2000 F. The fires were burning at 800 F to 1500 F so the fires would have actually cooled off the beams.

6) At 2:26 we hear testimony of steel beams pulled from the wreckage and bursting into flames when exposed to fresh oxygen. This indicates temperatures exceeding 1500 F (815 C).

7) At 3:00 we hear testimony that the deeper they dug the hotter it got and it was "probably 1500 degrees". This is days later and oxygen starved fires cannot reach these temps so the wreckage was still cooling yet exceeding 1500 F.

8) At 3:50: "At one point I think they were about 2800 degrees" which is above the melting temperature of steel.

9) At 3:52: "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from building 6."

10) At 3:59 Rudy Guliani says, "There were fires of 2000 F below the ground."

11) At 4:40 "Out on the rubble its still 1100 degrees. The guys' boots just melt within a few hours." NIST says the HOTTEST the steel ever got was 1100 F, and here we are well into the cleanup where the surface of the rubble is still 1100 F.
So what you are saying is that Gross was correct - there wasn't liquified and then cooled steel found in the rubble (i.e. something which would have been a pool of molten steel at one point)? Instead, what you have is the recollections about guesses about what various people observed, or second-hand reports of what other people recollected about guesses about what they observed?

Which exceeds 2000 F and falsifies the official explanation…
Not taking pressure into account.

It was not included at all in the body of the report. NIST analyzed 236 pieces of recovered structural steel which represented between 0.25% and 0.5% of all the structural steel in the building. Based on those 236 pieces they concluded steel temps did not exceed 600 C (1112 F). Now scroll up and look at that color chart again. 600 C is very deep dark red. We have a lot of evidence that temps far exceeded that.

John Gross did gather two pieces of structural steel that had the ends melted off. They showed evidence of very high temperature corrosion/erosion and sulfidation and relegated them to Appendix C and offered no explanation. This is Gross negligence. Here is Gross posing with the steel beams that were melted away at the ends:
I read the relevant section of the NIST report (Chapter 6, page 229) and explanations are given for the findings. I don't know why their explanations are regarded as "offered no explanation".

Maybe the solidified lumps of molten steel was part of the 99.7% of steel that NIST didn't consider in its investigation.
Maybe, but so what? It still means that Gross was correct in his challenge to the questioner - there was not, in fact, "pools of molten steel" found in the rubble.

Maybe if NIST could have admitted that all the evidence given above pointed to the presence of molten steel they would have looked for more of it to analyze.
It is also the case that they could have looked for molten steel and were unable to find it. Regardless, none of this shows that Gross was lying or dishonest. It shows that the questioner was dishonest.

Why did you bring this video up?

Yes, 5 days after collapse surface temperatures of 1341 F are extraordinary. This is saying the surface temperatures are 240 F hotter than NIST's estimated max steel beam temperature.
I haven't read the entire NIST report, but the section on the corroded beam, referred to above, explains that the temperature at this beam (in the rubble) would have exceeded 1526 F. I don't know where you are getting the claim that NIST's estimated max steel beam temperature was 1100.

Okay I know you are hesitant to form any kind of a determination so maybe "dishonest" is a step too big for you.
I'm willing to call the questioner dishonest. He should have realized that there was no "pool of molten steel found in the bottom of the towers" (regardless of whether this was because NIST failed to find it).

How about this: Do you find his response lacking? Do you think the evidence for molten steel and the temps in excess of the fire temperatures warrant further investigation? The FEMA report on the sulfidated and melted steel beam said further investigation was warranted. Why was no further investigation performed?
What I've read of the NIST report specifically shows investigation for evidence of molten steel and evidence for excess temps. So I don't understand your claim.

Linda
 
A few examples...

I don't believe in God. I disagree with the policy of a multitude of governments of excluding some drugs from regulation with respect to manufacturing, safety and efficacy. I have spoken out against Organized Skeptics with respect to tone, misrepresentations of sting operations, whether the MDC is performed in good faith (among others). I have challenged the conventional wisdom that rayon chenille will worm if woven in a structure with 5-thread floats (okay, you may not have seen that particular debate, since it took place on a different forum, but boy did I get in trouble for that).

Linda
These are small subjects and not especially controversial and certainly wouldn't affect your overall status in society. These views don't cross any lines. They are relatively safe areas of disagreement. So yes, on the one hand you have taken a few minor non establishment views to heart. I do acknowledge that you have made that point. Overall, these aren't the kinds of things I was referring to and I did not make that clear enough.
 
The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence.
This is why I brought up young earth creationism... because the arguments made by debunkers are so similar to the arguments against radioisotope dating. "The Potassium-Argon data means nothing because it can sometimes be misleading!"

You really need to demonstrate some legitimate reasons why the color would be misleading in these cases. You can't just declare evidence to mean nothing.

This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together.
You have no proof that it would mix. The physics of buoyancy indicates the materials would not mix, but float. Aluminum has very high surface tension and would tend to roll over organic materials without mixing or picking them up. This is why pouring aluminum into ant piles and watermelons works. Even if you dunked some glowing chunks into the aluminum they would arise coated in aluminum. I have poked a stick into molten aluminum before and it just comes out covered in silvery aluminum. Organics require oxygen to burn. If they are coated in aluminum they can't burn. Aluminum even in its liquid state is not translucent. Hot coals embedded in Aluminum cannot cause the aluminum to glow. We see a lot of small glowing droplets. Were this aluminum mixed with organics we would see a slivery flow and silver droplets mixed with some silvery chunks.

Here is a little experiment pouring aluminum on paper. The aluminum surface tension is very high so that the aluminum rolls around on the paper. Aluminum would tend not pick up material in its flow.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.
It is unreasonable and you've given no evidence or legitimate reason to suspect that it would. This is pure bunk speculation.

The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
This was in the shade, where are these bright ambient lights that make the droplets appear to glow? And why don't we see their reflections on the aluminum facade of the building? What kinds of chemical reactions? You're just making more bunk speculation with no evidence.

In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver.
I don't see any silver drops. I see glowing white/yellow/orange/red drops. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation.
Sorry, but you're wrong. This is how molten steel behaves. Go spend some time around a cutting torch. White hot molten steel "BBs" spew out and turn orange and red within a couple seconds. The droplets weren't "heated". They contain heat inside while the outside cools. When they are smashed the hot inside is exposed and oxidizes and then cools again and turns orange very quickly.

These iron BBs were found in all samples of the WTC dust.

One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra.
This is not an explanation. This is more bunk speculation. The facade was made of aluminum. Explain what reaction you're talking about.

Here is Aluminum being launched into the air from contact with water... This is not in broad daylight and still no bright white/yellow/orange flashes. Just silver droplets sprayed everywhere.

The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
If you're going to assert that the glow of visible radiation was due to chemical reactions or reflections you need to provide some specifics. Otherwise this is bunk speculation with no evidence to back it up.

Perhaps not. Remember, we are seeing this right where the jet liner cane to a halt - check the bowing of the building, and sagging of floors. (I guess that's just coincidence, right ;)):
This doesn't address anything that I said. I'm not denying that jetliners hit the towers.





Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/defaul t.htm
These curves are simplified models based on a logarithmic formula. These are to provide design engineers with a very conservative worst case design scenario and this is how NIST came up with the absolute worst case max fire temperature of 1800 F. These simplified models do not take into account gas properties, mass exchange, or energy exchange. They do not take into account oxygen or fuel starvation. Advanced models would necessarily provide lower temperatures.

And once again, these are air/flame temperatures. Structural steel and aluminum temperatures would lag behind flame temperatures since the heat transfer into the steel takes time. Survivors were able to descend through the burning floors indicating temps were not extremely high throughout the entire section of damaged floors. The thick dark smoke and cherry red flames indicates a cooler oxygen starved fire. So conditions were not ideal and temperatures were nowhere near the maximum. Beams analyzed by NIST showed max steel temps in the fires of around 600 C (1112 F) and most of the beams did not get that hot. The only 2 pieces they analyzed that showed temps in excess of this were beam ends that were heavily eroded/corroded under high temperature and pressure and had evidence of sulfidation and liquidation. This is all indicative of thermate.

You're over fixating on black body radiation...
Keep saying "black body radiation" and ignoring the evidence... it really helps you sound like you know what you're talking about.
 
Top