It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material [observed flowing out of WTC2 before its collapse] was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch.
Then we added plastic shavings -- which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
They certainly seem to have the resources to actually do a double blind study on this, but instead chose to do a little tinkering and proclaim that their experiment fit their theories, so their theories are true.
double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effect
Originally posted by esdad71
Sorry, but this is like if I made a model of the WTC out of tinkertoys, flew a GI joe jet into it and then set it on fire with some jet fuel....
Originally posted by bsbray11
You only use double-blind studies in fields like medicine and psychology. Don't even try to argue that it's relevant because you think Jones' is biased, because that is not at all what a double-blind study is for, lol.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
Hydrocarbons will not make aluminum glow orange.
I'm not responding to any more of your posts on this thread, LeftBehind, because this is getting much worse than simply not being able to tell one face of WTC7 from another, or falsely assuming no one has made charges against the government on 9/11. This is just a new level of ridiculous for you. So yeah, I'll catch back up with your great debunkings on another thread. Take it easy man.