Conspiracy Theory 9/11 and the Europhysics News - Controlled Demolition

[BustedWing]

OK! Back at it...

Lets start from the beginning and work our way through shall we?

So you said in post #1,064 that "The fires at the impact sites were recorded at approximately 1100°C .." which turns out to be an error. What you've just posted says that NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius.

Are we really going to argue semantics that 1000 isnt "approximately 1100"? Given the threshold being discussed is UNDER BOTH VALUES, why does this even matter?

980 is the number. the recorded temperature is above that. that should be the end of the discussion, not whether this is a "gotcha" over 1100 vs 1000.

Regarding NIST lying or being wrong - all I said was they have admitted their errors regarding other crucial elements relating to that day. Is this news to you? You've never heard that before?

They've released drafts, and then released later versions, with clarifications and deeper analysis. This is precisely what should be done as a paper goes through peer review process.

I want you to remember that term - peer review. Its going to be important shortly.

Gotta go. Hopefully this will do for now.

https://skysaver.com/blog/hot-can-fire-get-skysaver-rescue-backpacks/?v=7516fd43adaa

This is a rather silly argument. A "general office fire" vs what was observed at the WTC site - do you think they are comparable? Should they be compared as two similar things? Really?

I would also love to know why on earth you are now contending that the fires were only 593 degrees C, thus it was definitely NOT aluminium that was melting, when earlier you were contending that the melted material was steel/iron/thermatic reacion, which has a MUCH MUCH higher melting point.

Which is it here Crankitup? Were the fires too cold to melt aluminium and ALSO hot enough to melt steel/iron burn thermite? Are you not now just citing anything that is against the official story, regardless of whether it contradicts your earlier positons?

Here's a link to the CSTAR paper related to the fire temps, and the modelling and methodology used to arrive at their conclusions: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101420

Very simply put, it factored in things like ignition source, Oxygen and supplementary fuel (like all the stuff in the building), insulation, duration of burn etc etc etc.

VERY IMPORTANTLY - it was peer reviewed. If you don't know what this means, and why this is something you should not ignore, let me know, and I will explain why this means the argument: "But NIST is wrong check out this blog!" carries very little weight with me, and why it shouldnt with you either.

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

This whole next wall of text is something that does the rounds from time to time. Do you know what it is? Its a blog post from an anonymous blogger.

From 2003.

Thats 5 years BEFORE NIST released their findings.

a blog post that is anonymous. That went though (of course) zero peer review. That was published in 2003.

This carries more weight to you and is more believable to you than a paper that was independently peer reviewed, and published? Why? This is fascinating to me....

I'll add one more point. The FEMA report on 911 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes

Sure, but what was sustaining the fires past those four minutes? Why is this relevant at all?

and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 290C

Id like a citation please. In any case, the FEMA report was released in 2002 as a paper on the performance of the towers. It is a totally different thing to the NIST report, which is different again to the 9/11 commission report. I hope you're not confusing the three here...

the crucial thing to remember is that the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load. So even if the steel got hot enough to reduce it's holding capacity to 20%, it should still have remained standing.

Are you forgetting something here? Something that is pretty important to the holding capacity of the towers? Something like a plane flying into the towers, servering core support beams, an explosion, a fire etc etc?

How do you think this might impact the 5x holding capacity? None at all? Some? Lots? Did you consider this when you made your point?

Think about that for a moment.

 

[BustedWing]

Id also like to make sure we are reminded of the main argument we are discussing....that the substance falling from impact point of the towers prior to collapse was steel. This was, in your words, your number one issue with the official story.

How does the above support this position?

 

[Procrastinator35]

 

[Crankitup]

Are we really going to argue semantics that 1000 isnt "approximately 1100"? Given the threshold being discussed is UNDER BOTH VALUES, why does this even matter?

980 is the number. the recorded temperature is above that.

Firstly, as I said earlier, NIST have only speculated that isolated pockets of the fire may have just got to 1000°C and if so, it was probably for a short time.

Secondly, I think the difference between 1100 and 1000 is not semantics at all. 100 degrees is the difference between the freezing point and boiling point of water as an example of how much difference 100 degrees can make.

If NIST's speculation is that isolated pockets reached a maximum of 1000 for a short duration, I can't see that situation being enough to melt close to a plane's worth of aluminium, can you? If however the maximum was taken to be 1100 then I can envisage that enough of the fire was hotter than 980 for long enough to melt that amount of aluminium. Makes a big difference. Do you understand my quibble now?

They've released drafts, and then released later versions, with clarifications and deeper analysis. This is precisely what should be done as a paper goes through peer review process.

Great, you admit they've made errors in the past, which needed clearing up later. How do you know there still isn't errors in their latest version that you are relying so heavily on?

This is a rather silly argument. A "general office fire" vs what was observed at the WTC site - do you think they are comparable? Should they be compared as two similar things? Really?

Once again, twisting my quotes. Please don't misrepresent what I've said again or this discussion is finished. It's a tactic that just shows me instantly you're bereft of any meaningful response. I did not say or quote a third party saying a "general office fire". The quote was "Generally, high rise fires burn at about 593 Celsius".

I would also love to know why on earth you are now contending that the fires were only 593 degrees C, thus it was definitely NOT aluminium that was melting, when earlier you were contending that the melted material was steel/iron/thermatic reacion, which has a MUCH MUCH higher melting point.

Thermatic is a brand of fan and nothing else. Possibly you meant to say thermitic but even that's not a word. If you meant thermite reaction, yes that's what I think is one of the possibilities yes. Others have speculated mini nukes and tied that to the huge increase in cancer rates amongst first responders. I don't know what caused the the towers to fall in such an orderly, controlled demolition-like fashion. I only wish there'd been some footage taken of WTC7 leading up to it's collapse because if molten material had been captured emanating from that building prior to it's collapse the argument that it was aluminium from a plane couldn't be used.

All I know is that NIST speculated and/or measured upper layer air temperatures in the fire. Whilst all the cameras and attention was on the fire caused by the plane who knows what temperature parts of the building got to in any thermite reaction, or even where the thermite would have been placed so we could focus attention on it.

Sure, but what was sustaining the fires past those four minutes? Why is this relevant at all?

Because I'd say that once the fuel is gone, it's not much different to a normal high rise fire.

Id like a citation please. In any case, the FEMA report was released in 2002 as a paper on the performance of the towers. It is a totally different thing to the NIST report, which is different again to the 9/11 commission report. I hope you're not confusing the three here...

Translation - I'd like a citation but if you waste your time providing one for me I'll dismiss it anyway by saying it's old. Should I bother?

 

[BustedWing]

Firstly, as I said earlier, NIST have only speculated that isolated pockets of the fire may have just got to 1000°C

Speculation is certainly not the word I would use for their findings. NIST didnt speculate, they CONCLUDED, and have backed up their conclusions through a rigorous peer review process.

A pocket of fire that hit 1000 degrees was the corner you see the liquid aluminium dripping out of the building. Notice how the dripping liquid was only seen in one specific spot? Not across the entire building? Not in each corner? does that not imply that this is not the result of a cutting process (that thermite would be as per the prevailing conspiracy theory), as if it WERE from a cutting process, you would see it in all four corners, or even across the entire line of failure.

SO...if it WAS aluminium, why would it be only in that corner?

Well...the plane hit the other side of the building, and while some of the plane ejected out the other side, most was crushed up against the inside of the building wall...you guessed it, up against that corner. This created a pocket of well insulated flamable material and all that aluminium that the plane is made of (think a little like an oven) that heated and heated until it got to 1000 degrees, liquified, and driped out the side of the building.

This is a picture of the corner in question, post impact, but earlier than the "dripping" event:


You'll see quite clearly that the impact occurred on the other side of the building, and its all clear that the fires in that corner are especially aggressive when compared to the other areas of the building. This is clear evidence of what I state above.

If NIST's speculation is that isolated pockets reached a maximum of 1000 for a short duration, I can't see that situation being enough to melt close to a plane's worth of aluminium, can you?

Why on earth is the threshold to you "close to a plane's worth of aluminium"? Who asserts this? I would take a guess and say the substance pouring out of the building prior to collapse, remember this is what we are discussing here, would be what....1% of the planes aluminium stores? Maybe 5% if Im generous? In order for my position to be correct, I dont need to conclude that the whole plane melted. Thats absurd.

If however the maximum was taken to be 1100 then I can envisage that enough of the fire was hotter than 980 for long enough to melt that amount of aluminium. Makes a big difference. Do you understand my quibble now?

No, I still dont understand your quibble. a 100 degree difference is all that stands in your way between conspiracy theory, and the official story?

Again - I might need to you to clarify here..."All that aluminium"...how much do you think I THINK was melted here? Do you think I believe the entire plane melted, and dripped out the side of the building?

it was probably for a short time.

If you're going to quote NIST - provide a citation. I suspect you have either read this somewhere else (not the NIST report) and just assumed it was correct, completely misunderstood what they've said (hence I want you to show me where they say this) or dare I say it....just made it up.

I'm curious to see which of these it is.

Great, you admit they've made errors in the past, which needed clearing up later. How do you know there still isn't errors in their latest version that you are relying so heavily on?

Because these errors, as you call them, were identified in the PEER REVIEW PROCESS it underwent. It was identified, and corrected, and then published. I am extremely confident that, seeing as the report when through....wait for it....a PEER REVIEW PROCESS....all major issues have been identified and corrected.

You cannot say the same thing about ANYTHING you have produced as evidence thus far. NOTHING you have put forward has gone under the kind of scrutiny the NIST Report has gone through.

This is why I am so confident in its findings, when compared to anonymous blogs posted on the internet, which you have somehow decided has equal validity (more validity??)

I did not say or quote a third party saying a "general office fire". The quote was "Generally, high rise fires burn at about 593 Celsius".

Clarify your point then. Would you consider the WTC fires/events to be a "general event"? Or would it be an "extraordinary event", and thus make it not a good comparison to what would "generally" occur?

Thermatic is a brand of fan and nothing else. Possibly you meant to say thermitic but even that's not a word.

Are we really going to go down the "spelling errors mean I'm right" path again?

If you meant thermite reaction, yes that's what I think is one of the possibilities yes

What evidence do you have to assert this?
As an aside...have you checked to see what temperature thermite burns at, and if its consistent with your earlier assertions on the fire temps?

Others have speculated mini nukes and tied that to the huge increase in cancer rates amongst first responders.

Which is one of the more ridiculous theories.

I don't know what caused the the towers to fall in such an orderly, controlled demolition-like fashion.

Yet you seem to think the official story does not tell the most accurate version of events. Why do you think other theories better explain what occured?

All I know is that NIST speculated and/or measured upper layer air temperatures in the fire.

They conducted studies using all sorts of well tested and accepted methods, and arrived at a conclusion, which was then reviewed by industry peers, and was found to be correct by said peers.

They didn't guess.

Whilst all the cameras and attention was on the fire caused by the plane who knows what temperature parts of the building got to in any thermite reaction, or even where the thermite would have been placed so we could focus attention on it.

Well given that the prevailing theory is that Thermite would have been used to "cut" the support beams, its fair to say it would have been centered around said support beams. Plenty of those are visible, as they are the outer columns of the building. Funny that we dont see any "thermitic reaction" on any of the other beams (apart from the one you currently contend is a thermite reaction/steel melting/iron melting).

Translation - I'd like a citation but if you waste your time providing one for me I'll dismiss it anyway by saying it's old. Should I bother?

A more accurate translation would be: "Id like to see where you get your information from. If you're saying "FEMA says xxx" I want to see where they say it. If you instead produce "this guy on the internet, he says they said it"...and you can't produce where FEMA says it, I'll call BS.

IF in fact FEMA said it, I would then follow up with “given more recent, more accurate information has been released, why do you think this is the prevailing position of the official story?”.

 

[BustedWing]

Here are two pages (out of the thousands) of the NIST report that talk about the fires on the floors in question (81st floor of WTC 2).



To be clear - this is not the only information on all things fires, and how NIST arrived at their conclusions, but its a nice little piece that speaks to discussion we are currently having Crankitup.

Things to note:

* Its entirely consistent with what we see in the videos and pictures
* Its entirely consistent with the observed impact of the plane
* It shows us the temps in the area of the building in question - namely where the liquid metal drips from
and
* it was peer reviewed.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101420

 

[Crankitup]

Things to note:

* Its entirely consistent with what we see in the videos and pictures
* Its entirely consistent with the observed impact of the plane
* It shows us the temps in the area of the building in question - namely where the liquid metal drips from
and
* it was peer reviewed.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101420

I only have a short time right now. Just want to focus on one aspect before I address the rest of your last two posts. Just how rigorous and thorough do you suppose that peer review process was? A multitude of sources indicate it was severely flawed and lacking.

A Peer Review Case Study—The Events of 9/11

....

In 2009, I became a founding member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, serving as Coordinator of that organization for the past eight years [12]. In 2014, I co-authored with Wayne H. Coste and Michael R. Smith a paper on the ethics, or lack thereof, of the official reports on the WTC building destructions [13]. These official reports were produced by scientists and engineers at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) [14]. For these reports, there was no independent peer review process whatsoever, as shown in the passages quoted in the following paragraph [15,16]: Dr. James G. Quintiere, fire protection expert, stated: “I know of no peer review of the NIST work on WTC. They had a[n] Advisory Committee, and even some of them did not agree with the NIST work and conclusions.” In a paper on the WTC investigation, Quintiere ends with this statement: “I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues.” The absence of peer review for the NIST reports is alarming, especially in view of the consequences of 9/11. These consequences include the preemptive wars that have led to a devastating loss of life and property and to a substantial refugee problem. Additional consequences include the imposition of mass surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties, as well as a need to resolve fire safety and building code issues. However, contrary to NIST’s claims for the Twin Towers and WTC7, no steel-framed structure before or since 9/11 has ever been so completely devastated by damage and/or fire alone. While it is true that reports are often not peer-reviewed, and that the military actions and some of the other consequences mentioned above occurred before the NIST reports were written and available, widespread public questioning of the official story that was launched within two days after 9/11, as well as the many omissions and distortions found in the 9/11 Commission Report of 2004, demanded an investigation of unimpeachable integrity with an independent peer review of the NIST work [17,18]. The 9/11 Commission Report never mentioned the destruction of WTC7, a 47-storey building, and NIST never examined the actual fall and aftermath of the WTC Twin Towers’ destructions. Also at stake were the lives of many in the ongoing wars and the treatment and care of thousands who had breathed the lethal dust or powder in New York City [13]. Publications 2017, 5, 16 3 of 11 Ironically, the very seriousness of NIST’s ethical failure in omitting meaningful peer review has resulted in a thorough, but non-official, independent peer review of the NIST reports. At the present time, over 2800 highly qualified scientists, engineers, and architects, as well as many other scholars, have examined the official account including the NIST reports and have found it to be in violation of the scientific method and the norms of genuine scientific research [12,19]. For example, as stated previously, the NIST investigation never examined the actual fall of the Twin Towers, nor did it examine the building remains for explosives, as required by the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) guidelines in case of catastrophic collapse [20]. Independent analysis of the physical evidence, including the WTC debris powder or dust, points to the controlled demolition of the three buildings cited above [21]. For example, a very high percentage of iron-rich micro-spheres found by R.J. Lee group, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) and others in the powder indicated the use of thermite, a substance that can have both incendiary and explosive properties [13,22]. The independent findings show the great value of the peer review process and point to the need for a more advanced and open form of peer review. Such an open process occurred during one of the public input sessions held by NIST in 2008, with startling results. NIST had invited public comments on its preliminary findings on why WTC7 collapsed. In responding to a comment by David Chandler, Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, claimed that in NIST’s structural model the visible portion of WTC7 fell for a distance equivalent to 17 floors in 5.4 s, which is 1.5 s or 40% longer than a time of 3.9 s that would be the case for free fall [23]. NIST had stated previously that this is “consistent with physical principles.” In his comment, David Chandler, a high school physics teacher, pointed out that a variety of methods showed from the motion of the top NE corner of the building that there was in fact free fall. Chandler’s measurements indicated free fall for the first 2.5 s, equivalent to a distance of 8 floors or about 30 m [24]. However, NIST did not acknowledge this fact. As Shyam Sunder had previously stated: “[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. [ . . . ] [T]here was structural resistance [ . . . ] in this particular case.” Later, NIST simply incorporated a value of 2.25 s of free fall, based on its own measurement, into its final report without comment and quietly removed the statement about its analysis being “consistent with physical principles.” By failing to address the implications of freefall, NIST’s final report, in this context, has all the earmarks of attempted scientific fraud [25]. Two days after 9/11, on 13 September 2001, Professor Zdenˇek P. Bažant of Northwestern University submitted to peer review a paper with one of his students, Yong Zhou, as co-author [26]. The paper was a theoretical analysis of the WTC Towers’ collapses. It argued that, “if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.” The paper was submitted to the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) Journal of Engineering Mechanics and was, after peer review and some modifications, published in 2002. Later, NIST cited this paper as support for its own conclusions [27]. However, Bažant’s and Zhou’s paper never attempted to explain the many different physical observations, such as lateral high-velocity ejections of materials for hundreds of meters, and the fact that there was no pile driver to crush each tower, since all materials were blown outside the buildings’ footprints [28]. The acceptance of Bažant’s and Zhou’s paper by ASCE and its use by NIST is therefore highly questionable. In this important instance, the peer review process allowed publication of a theoretical paper purporting to explain an event with serious and ongoing consequences for society, but which ignored the major physical observations that disproved the paper’s theory. Moreover, Bažant’s critics have had difficulty in getting ASCE to publish their significant criticisms. See, for example, the experience of James Gourley [29]. The highly charged political environment surrounding 9/11 has greatly impeded the acceptance and publication of research papers that question or contradict the official account of that event. A glaring example of bias on the part of the ASCE editors is provided by the experience of Tony Szamboti and Richard Johns who submitted a critique of a subsequent paper by Jia-Liang Le and Zdenek Bažant entitled “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Publications 2017, 5, 16 4 of 11 Smooth” [30]. The latter paper appears to be a response to an earlier paper and critique of Bažant by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti that predicted a “jolt” if indeed the top 12 stories of WTC1 had fallen on the lower, undamaged portion of the building [31]. The Szamboti and Johns paper was rejected by ASCE editors as being “out of scope.” As Szamboti and Johns have since noted, “It is not possible for a Discussion paper, one that simply corrects errors in a paper that is already published, to be out of scope for a journal [32].” This is seen by independent researchers as clear proof that the editors were unwilling to allow Le’s and Bažant’s paper to be corrected.

https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/pdf

 

[BustedWing]

I only have a short time right now. Just want to focus on one aspect before I address the rest of your last two posts. Just how rigorous and thorough do you suppose that peer review process was? A multitude of sources indicate it was severely flawed and lacking.



https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/pdf

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Created: September 14, 2011 | Updated: September 10, 2021*

www.nist.gov

I HIGHLY encourage you to take a look at the people listed as signatories in the group you presented in your post above. Take a good look at who you're holding up as bastions of critical and rational thought who dispute the official story.

Its eye opening.

I read through the Bio's of the first five or so and.....wow....

One "runs" a company that doesn't do much (website defunct), and as best I could tell thinks he has discovered the path to cold fusion. From his home. yep.

One has lived in the woods to "clear his head" for a number of years. Now he makes truther DVDs. Really. this is his "company": http://911tv.blogspot.com/

Another being held up as a high rise building engineering expert, was a ship builder. Cos they're totally the same thing.

Another "read a conspiracy book", and was convinced. Thats the extent of his credentials.



I hope that if/when you do, you wont be so keen to hold them up as people who know what they're talking about on this matter.

 

[Crankitup]

View attachment 769134

FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Created: September 14, 2011 | Updated: September 10, 2021*

www.nist.gov

I HIGHLY encourage you to take a look at the people listed as signatories in the group you presented in your post above. Take a good look at who you're holding up as bastions of critical and rational thought who dispute the official story.

Its eye opening.

I read through the Bio's of the first five or so and.....wow....

One "runs" a company that doesn't do much (website defunct), and as best I could tell thinks he has discovered the path to cold fusion. From his home. yep.

One has lived in the woods to "clear his head" for a number of years. Now he makes truther DVDs. Really. this is his "company": http://911tv.blogspot.com/

Another being held up as a high rise building engineering expert, was a ship builder. Cos they're totally the same thing.

Another "read a conspiracy book", and was convinced. Thats the extent of his credentials.



I hope that if/when you do, you wont be so keen to hold them up as people who know what they're talking about on this matter.

Back to exaggeration and deploying the logical fallacy of poisoning the well as your central tactic again? I must've touched a nerve responding to your claims about peer review.

I took a look at the signatories as you requested. The picture looks a little different to what you described, as I suspected. Here are the first 5 of a list of almost 100 who they list in alphabetical order.

Signatories
We, as an organization, do not necessarily endorse the entire content of statements or articles referenced on individual member pages.
Clicking a member’s name will open the member’s page in a new window.

Alan Frank Aeschliman, Chemistry, BS Chemistry, California State University, Long Beach, CA
Sterling D. Allan, Microbiology, BS Microbiology, Brigham Young University, 1987
Hummux Anax, Physics, PhD Physics, Case Institute
Mark Basile, Chemical Engineering, BS Chemical Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic
Stanley A. Beattie, Physics, Engineering, B.S. Physics, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, 1959

 

[Crankitup]

That's just who has signed the following petition.

Join Us
To qualify as a member of “Scientists”, you need at least one of the following:

1. A degree in a Natural Science or one of these Formal Sciences: Mathematics, Computer Science, Systems Science.
2. A degree in a related field and, in addition, a substantial natural science/mathematics background by way of course work, or actual experience as a scientist through work, management, teaching and/or the publication of scientific papers.

Joining entails signing our petition. To indicate your willingness to join us and to sign our Petition, contact the Coordinator through the Contact page with the information listed below:

1. your name as you want it listed;
2. your field(s);
3. your degrees and the schools at which you earned them;
4. your present or most recent position;
5. your preferred email address;
6. copies of your degrees for verification purposes.

All of this information, except items (5) and (6), will be posted on our website. Items (5) and (6) will be used for administrative purposes only and kept confidential.
After we receive your information, we will contact you directly to confirm your membership.

Petition
We, the members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, challenge the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. In particular, we challenge the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), acting under the Bush-Cheney administration’s Department of Commerce. According to NIST’s reports, the Twin Towers were destroyed solely by the impact of the airliners combined with the effects of the ensuing fires, and WTC 7 was brought down by fire alone.
Besides questioning the accuracy of these reports by NIST, we also question their scientific integrity. We do so primarily because of NIST’s refusal to seriously consider the possibility that explosive materials of any type may have been involved in the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7. That explosives were involved is indicated by several lines of evidence, including:

• The manner in which the buildings collapsed: too fast, too symmetrical, and too uniform to be caused by heat from random fires.
• The collapse of WTC 7 at free-fall acceleration for over 2 seconds (more than 100 feet), indicating that the columns below were providing zero resistance.
• Testimonies by dozens of credible witnesses that explosions were going off in the buildings.
• Observation of temperatures in the rubble that were higher, and of far longer duration, than can be accounted for by normal fires.
• Observation of anomalous particles in the WTC dust that indicate the use of explosives or pyrotechnics.

We ask the president to authorize a new, complete, unbiased investigation, with subpoena power, to identify possible criminal activities, both in committing crimes and in covering them up. This investigation could quickly proceed with a Special Prosecutor or a Forensic Science Panel, for instance.
We also ask the president to order the Justice Department to expedite the release of important 9/11-related videos, photographs and documents and to permit whistleblowers to speak freely.

Their 'About Us' page shows you the organizing committee.

The article I referred to was written by one of them.

About Us
Scientists for 9/11 Truth is a group of scientific professionals who are calling for new, independent, and scientific investigations of the events of September 11, 2001.
Organizing Committee:
David S. Chandler, BS Physics, Harvey Mudd College, MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University
Jonathan Cole, P.E., Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering, University of Connecticut
Steven E. Jones, PhD Physics, Vanderbilt University
Guthrie Miller, PhD Physics, Stanford University
John D. Wyndham, PhD Physics, Cambridge University

 

[Crankitup]

What are you relying on for your temperatures? A computer based simulation model.

 

[BustedWing]

That's just who has signed the following petition.



Their 'About Us' page shows you the organizing committee.

The article I referred to was written by one of them.

Goodness me....

I HIGHLY encourage you to take a look at the people listed as signatories

I never characterised these people and anything other than signatories.

In any case, none of this comes close to addressing the original issue, which is how ANY OF THIS shows that the material dripping from the Tower at impact point prior to collapse is steel, as is your contention.

So far your "evidence" to support this assertion is:
"What else could it be?"

It was my understanding the Towers had 244 perimeter columns made of structural steel along with steel plates etc. Why would you think the molten metal pictured would be anything else?

When I showed you it was aluminium, and how this was determined to be so... you went with:

(2) I would question whether your pictures were of molten aluminium because all the videos I found and watched showed that molten aluminium turned silver in colour when poured out of it's container. I'll link you up if you like.

(3) If your position is that there was no molten iron or molten steel in the WTC buildings I would suggest you read this.

Point two is wrong, and you later admit its wrong as the temperature needed for aluminium to be the right colour was achieved at the impact points

Point three is bizzarre, as why would melted steel in the rubble weeks after the event prove that what we see dripping from the impact point PRIOR to collapse be steel?

You just ignore this gaping hole in your logic, and press on regardless.

You then pivoted to "Its thermite"

Thanks for that. I had come across some of those arguments yesterday. I also came across this.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...unts_for_the_Molten_Metal_Observed_on_9112001

I showed you how the study that allegedly showed thermite was unscientific and ridiculed in the community, and how its been widely debunked.

Instead of refuting, you just rolled on with

"But NIST didnt even check for it"

Holds water with me ATM because they at least conducted tests on this issue, unlike NIST.

Which doesn't of course address just how silly the premise is to begin with, nor do you address the contradiction between "it was too cold for aluminium" and yet somehow supports your melted steel claim, and doesn't even address the temperature thermite burns at, but we press on with the thermite "possibility" nonetheless.

You then pivot to "But NIST has been wrong before, what makes you so sure they're right now".

I walk you through the reams of data and information they provided, and showed you how they checked the veracity of their claims.

You waived it all away with a random blog that comes from random people on the internet that say otherwise, as if they have the same credibility

And here we are today...

So far, you havent shown a shred of evidence that the material dripping from the impact point was steel, which was what YOU said was your most concerning issues with the official story. You started with steel, went to Iron pretty quickly. Switched to thermite seamlessly, and then tried to tell me the temperature was too cold for aluminium, which if were true would also discount steel and thermite by default.

How do you reconcile this?

Can you??

 

[BustedWing]

What are you relying on for your temperatures? A computer based simulation model.

read the report - it gives you precisely how they arrived at the temperatures.

If you don't think its correct, its up to you to tell us why, and how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Crankitup]

read the report - it gives you precisely how they arrived at the temperatures.

If you don't think its correct, its up to you to tell us why, and how you arrived at that conclusion.

The question was rhetorical. I already gave the answer.

 

[Crankitup]

Goodness me....

I never characterised these people and anything other than signatories.

In any case, none of this comes close to addressing the original issue, which is how ANY OF THIS shows that the material dripping from the Tower at impact point prior to collapse is steel, as is your contention.

So far your "evidence" to support this assertion is:
"What else could it be?"

When I showed you it was aluminium, and how this was determined to be so... you went with:



Point two is wrong, and you later admit its wrong as the temperature needed for aluminium to be the right colour was achieved at the impact points

Point three is bizzarre, as why would melted steel in the rubble weeks after the event prove that what we see dripping from the impact point PRIOR to collapse be steel?

You just ignore this gaping hole in your logic, and press on regardless.

You then pivoted to "Its thermite"


I showed you how the study that allegedly showed thermite was unscientific and ridiculed in the community, and how its been widely debunked.

Instead of refuting, you just rolled on with

"But NIST didnt even check for it"


Which doesn't of course address just how silly the premise is to begin with, nor do you address the contradiction between "it was too cold for aluminium" and yet somehow supports your melted steel claim, and doesn't even address the temperature thermite burns at, but we press on with the thermite "possibility" nonetheless.

You then pivot to "But NIST has been wrong before, what makes you so sure they're right now".

I walk you through the reams of data and information they provided, and showed you how they checked the veracity of their claims.

You waived it all away with a random blog that comes from random people on the internet that say otherwise, as if they have the same credibility

And here we are today...

So far, you havent shown a shred of evidence that the material dripping from the impact point was steel, which was what YOU said was your most concerning issues with the official story. You started with steel, went to Iron pretty quickly. Switched to thermite seamlessly, and then tried to tell me the temperature was too cold for aluminium, which if were true would also discount steel and thermite by default.

How do you reconcile this?

Can you??

FMD. Back to exaggeration and lies and misrepresentation again.

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all. I'm not wasting any more precious time with you.

 

[Present Not Past]

FMD. Back to exaggeration and lies and misrepresentation again.

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all. I'm not wasting any more precious time with you.

 

[Crankitup]

View attachment 770765

 

[Procrastinator35]

FMD. Back to exaggeration and lies and misrepresentation again.

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all. I'm not wasting any more precious time with you.

Took you a while, but you finally got there.

Busted wing is a professional troll

 

[BustedWing]

FMD. Back to exaggeration and lies and misrepresentation again.

I was right all along. No chance of an earnest or honest discussion with you at all. I'm not wasting any more precious time with you.

I asked you some very simple, direct questions.

And you couldn’t answer them.

In fact you’ve just straight up ignored them.

It’s really simple....you said it was steel melting from the point of impact. What’s your evidence??




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BustedWing]

View attachment 770765

My hope is he has gone and thought about his position, and perhaps reversed it, or at least revised it.

Not that he would admit it here of course.

I mean...this was his NUMBER ONE BIGGEST FLAW with the official story. The largest of the “gaping holes” in his opinion.

And when it’s stress tested just a little bit, he has no answers. None.

Imagine how flimsy his #2,3,4 and so on “issues” are...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Present Not Past]

I asked you some very simple, direct questions.

And you couldn’t answer them.

In fact you’ve just straight up ignored them.

It’s really simple....you said it was steel melting from the point of impact. What’s your evidence??




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Don't worry BustedWing the idiots have left the room.

 

[BustedWing]

Took you a while, but you finally got there.

Busted wing is a professional troll

Professional!!!??

When can I expect my paycheque?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BustedWing]

Don't worry BustedWing the idiots have left the room.

I hope he comes back. I hope he has the sack to answer my questions...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankitup]

Busted Wing "BLAH BLAH BLAH"



Sockdude (aka Present Not Past) "Yeah mate. Totally agree".

 

[Crankitup]

I hope he comes back. I hope he has the sack to answer my questions...


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Pretty ironic coming from you. Before I posted in here, your last post was this #779 where you promised to reply to someone but then never did and still haven't.