WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Informer1958

From your link.

...the theoretical maximum temperature of a building fire (maximum 1000°C/1800°F) is not even close to the melting point of steel

Well, that proves that the molten metal was not steel because recorded temperatures never exceeded 2000 degrees F. However, the recorded temperatures were more than high enough to melt aluminum.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F, and that it remains silvery when poured in daylight conditions, regardless of the temperature. It is theoretically possible to continue heating liquid aluminum way past its melting point and into the yellow-white temperature range, but the office fire was not a plausible source for such high temperatures, and there was no crucible to contain liquid aluminum for continued heating. Put another way, even if the building fire could have somehow provided the needed temperature for the yellow-white glow, the unrestrained aluminum would have melted and trickled away before it could achieve such a temperature. This problem also rules out other proposed alternative metals — lead, for example — which have similarly low melting points.

Finally, Dr. Jones adds that even if liquid aluminum could have been restrained long enough to make it glow white, it would still have appeared silvery within the first two meters of falling through the air in daylight conditions, due to its high reflectivity and low emissivity.

hus, the liquid metal seen pouring out of the South Tower could not have been aluminum, since it remains yellow in broad daylight, despite falling several hundred feet through the air.

NIST tries to circumvent this problem with the untested proposition that the observed glow could be due to the mixing of aluminum with combustible organic materials from the building's interior. But Dr. Jones has actually performed the experiments that soundly refute NIST's hypothesis. As he puts it, "This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not 'glow orange' due to partially-burned organics 'mixed' in (per NIST theory), because they do not mix in! My colleague noted that, just like oil and water, organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn — and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do not impart to the hot liquid aluminum an 'orange glow' when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!"

www1.ae911truth.org... teel-and-iron-or-aluminum-andor-lead.html

I am not interested in you "opinions" in Dr Jones nor am I interested in the disinformation about him that was created many years ago to try and discredit him from OS supporters.

If you do not believe this science is sound then You show me real science disproving this?

Still waiting on your science debunking A&E and I am not interested in peoples "opinions" to what they believe.

a reply to: wildb

Anyone who participates in this thread.

a reply to: Informer1958

From your link.

Dr. Jones also notes that molten aluminum appears silvery as it melts at 660°C/1220°F,

That is only at its lowest temperatures, which Steven Jones failed to tell others. I wonder why. Perhaps, he didn't want to tell anyone that recorded temperatures were much higher than the lower melting point of aluminum.

Still waiting on your science debunking A&E

Just goes to show that you are not paying attention. Go back three post of mine. It is evident that you are just here to deceive others.

a reply to: Informer1958

Where did you get the idea that the aluminum was burning 980 degrees? Was it not noted to be burning at 1200°C/2200°F

Just to let you know that I posted that aluminum temperature color chart as a reference only.

a reply to: skyeagle409

"AE 911 Truth" says that lateral ejections of mult-ton steel was evidence of explosives

"Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,


"AE 911 Truith" said that explosives did it, but let's take a look here. Seems that AE 911 Truth is not playing with a full deck considering that the steel columns of WTC1 are standing within the huge bomb crater.
"AE 911 Truth Debunked. That's strike one!

That is your "opinion".

Not debunked! Strike zero!

"AE 911 Truth" says

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,” evidence of bombs.

And your evidence is... Your "opinion". do you have any science to disprove this?

Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.

According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core.

* Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.

* ”Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Photo: Compressed Air Squibs

A silly photos does not DEBUNK SCIENCE!

SOURCES PLEASE?
www.metabunk.org...

It is evident that photo depicts anneled steel, not steel in a molten state. Now, let's take a look here.

Photo: Solidified Molten Steel

AE 911 debunked again, and that's strike three!!!

LOL, your photos proves nothing.

Strike zero for you.

Just goes to show that you haven't been paying attention to what I have been posting.

I have been paying attention to your silly photos THAT YOU CALL SCIENCE.

Is this what you call SCIENCE?

You need to throw in the towel, you have failed miserably proving A&E science wrong.

I am still waiting for your science?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Just to let you know that I posted that aluminum temperature color chart as a reference only.

And that proved what?

Still waiting for your science proving A&E wrong?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

The Jones paper was thoroughly trashed in a 2010 thread that you played little part in; Turbofan and I had a great time. Eventually, the joy of the Truthers faded and they went away without having Jones join the debate, as threatened. Turbo asked him but he was reluctant to debate in a public forum when he found out about my chemistry background.

Wrong!

I don't see all the TRUTHERS supporting YOU or giving you any stars.

And that's the proof that no one is supporting you.

Really? What is "Wrong!"? Of course the Truthers don't support me; they can't handle the truth and they are averse to the scientific method. The A&E is hopelessly lost. They only have opinion as they certainly don't have science. Call it "selective science" with bias if you would like. The paper was trashed using Jones' own data. Jones couldn't find his own backside with both hands if it was on fire.
The only reason that I expose A&E is so that those about to be sucked in to the alternate reality of their cult have a chance to see both sides before they slide down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. Most people don't care enough to even read the fantasies spouted by A&E much less bother to critique them.

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is only at its lowest temperatures, which Steven Jones failed to tell others. I wonder why. Perhaps, he didn't want to tell anyone that recorded temperatures were much higher than the lower melting point of aluminum.

Perhaps he didn't feel it was important. what are you trying to prove here besides giving your "opinion" again?

Just goes to show that you are not paying attention. Go back three post of mine. It is evident that you are just here to deceive others.

So now you are saying I am deceiving others on ATS? Because I asked you for credible science to debunk A&E?

LOL, throw in the towel skyeagle, you cannot debunk A&E science and now that is a fact.

You want everyone to believe your "opinions" are science.

I don't think you know or understand science.

Do you know what science is?

This has gone on way past
it's "Best By" date.

This was a coup.
Cheney overthrew congressional power with Executive
privilege. He waited a long time to find a "George"
to pretend to be president while he surrounded
himself with actual playmakers in the White House .

How about an entirely new angle
A 300 ton airline took out a
500,000 ton building?
Lets reduce it because the scale is nuts.
But afterward the scale is just as insanely one sided.
If you had a 30 pound man and threw him really hard against
a 50,000 pound man, would you put money on the 30 pounder to topple the giant?
Because he's holding a firecracker ?
That's the stats between the two.
Think about it.

If anyone can watch 4 hours of the Toronto Hearings and not
want a new investigation, their belief systems may never allow it

a reply to: pteridine

Really? What is "Wrong!"? Of course the Truthers don't support me; they can't handle the truth and they are averse to the scientific method.

Really!

You put yourself high on a pedestal stool don't you. You really believe that all ATS readers are really stupid and have no education whatsoever. That is what your quote to me implies.

You believe in your statement to me that ATS readers cannot handle the truth. You must be a very special somebody, eh.

The A&E is hopelessly lost.

According to whom, you.

They only have opinion as they certainly don't have science. Call it "selective science" with bias if you would like.

Again according to whom, you? I don't believe you have ever read any of their technical papers.

Call it selective thinking your views on this matter are very bias in supporting the OS.

The paper was trashed using Jones' own data. Jones couldn't find his own backside with both hands if it was on fire.

No, Jones paper was not trashed that is disinformation. I don't care what you think of Jones that is your lame "opinion".

The only reason that I expose A&E is so that those about to be sucked in to the alternate reality of their cult have a chance to see both sides before they slide down the rabbit hole to Wonderland. Most people don't care enough to even read the fantasies spouted by A&E much less bother to critique them.

You have exposed nothing bad about A&E except to ridicule their science as you have just demonstrated here.

To say most people don't care to read A&E or understand the science shows your discontent for their science and the truth.

Fantasies! yet to this day, 14 years later, you have never provided one shred of evidence that A&E science is wrong.

Spewing your hatred towards well respected science only proves, the OS that you so dearly defend is falling apart and you have lost miserable in trying to support it.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

But afterward the scale is just as insanely one sided.
If you had a 3 pound man and threw him really hard against
a 50,000 pound man, would you put money on the 3 pounder to topple the giant?

So you don't believe that a torpedo can sink a ship?
Or better still a match cannot sink a ship?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

But afterward the scale is just as insanely one sided.
If you had a 3 pound man and threw him really hard against
a 50,000 pound man, would you put money on the 3 pounder to topple the giant?

So you don't believe that a torpedo can sink a ship?
Or better still a match cannot sink a ship?

Dang Sam that was good !
Really .
If the torpedo is aluminum and armed only
with cool burning kerosene, no sweat.

a reply to: Informer1958

Yet you just ignored the very fact that I just posted to you, that NIST made millions of dollars to fool you.

All it took was my own experience and knowledge that allowed me to know when to hold 'em, and when to throw 'em.

a reply to: Informer1958

Perhaps he didn't feel it was important. what are you trying to prove here besides giving your "opinion" again?

Steven Jones knew what he was doing. Remember, Steven Jones was the same person who convinced a number of truthers that this photo depicted molten steel.

Steven Jones Evidence of Molten Steel at Ground zero

a reply to: Informer1958

And that proved what?

It proves that aluminum depicts different color ranges, which depend upon its temperature.

Still waiting for your science proving A&E wrong?

Since you are too lazy to review what I posted just a few post ago, you can go on and keep on waiting.

Hint: posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 07:56 PM

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

How about an entirely new angle A 300 ton airline took out a 500,000 ton building?

Not so difficult to understand. After all, a small private jet brought down a steel frame hangar upon itself, which collapsed due to the resultant fire.

Photo: Private Jet Fire Collapse Steel Frame Hangar

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Dang Sam that was good !
Really . If the torpedo is aluminum and armed only with cool burning kerosene, no sweat.

Apparently, that is what happened. And it is apparent, in fact, a reality, that a huge bomb failed to collapse WTC1 in 1993 despite the fact its steel columns were seen sitting within that huge bomb crater.

I have posted that photo as well.

a reply to: Informer1958

14 years later, you have never provided one shred of evidence that A&E science is wrong.

It is easy to prove "AE 911 Truth" wrong, which I have done as well. After all, it has now been 14 years and counting and still no evidence of demo explosives nor thermite.

Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis

www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Steven Jones knew what he was doing. Remember, Steven Jones was the same person who convinced a number of truthers that this photo depicted molten steel.

Steven Jones Evidence of Molten Steel at Ground zero

Your not debating anything here, trying your best to discredit anyone who has any credibility is all you are doing.

That phony photos was concocted by the disinformation campaign on the OS side, trying their best to discredit Jones. And you are still falling for that disinformation. How interesting.

Where is your proof that Steven Jones posted that photo?