Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.
Kenny, I am -very- curious as to where you are getting your numbers from. While I have seen a petition from Architects and Engineers saying they doubt the official story (511 and counting), I have never seen a similar list of architects and engineers who believe wholeheartedly in the official story. Or scientists for that matter. And yet, you apparently seem to be privy of such a list that includes hundreds of thousands of them. By all means, do share.
In any case, yes, there is -finally- beginning to be a consensus on global warming. You know when the first scientist believed that the actions of humans was dramatically effecting the earth's climate? In the 1950s:
http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx
Those in the 9/11 truth movement can certainly hope that it doesn't take half a century before the majority of scientists finally agree that 9/11 was an inside job. After all, the internet didn't exist in the 1950s.. but perhaps a while yet.
I know that there are some scientists that claim to debunk him. But let me put it to you this way; I've been debating with you and others here for over a month. And yet, despite all of this time, I have yet to persuade you guys that you're mistaken. You have likewise not been able to persuade me. What I'm getting at here is that the issues are complex. And if you are of a certain persuasion, you might easily be fooled into -believing- that he has been debunked, when, in fact, the arguments that supposedly debunked him where themselves flawed.
Last edited:
He was put on paid leave because he was embarrassing his university by pushing flawed theories out on the internet that where outside his field of expertise. The engineering department at his own uni were certainly quick to denounce his work. If you want to call that politics and not someone making an arse of themselves then fine it was politics.
No that doesn't answer my question again. If he has these amazing 'smoking gun' samples then why isn't research being submitted? Why doesn't he give them to a scientist who is actually respected?
The bentham paper only mentions that NIST didn't test for thermite as the last point. Well they didn't test for kryptonite either..... I think even you will admit that Bentham paper is pretty tame.
Bentham is something of a sham journal if we are to believe the word of Ryan Mackay.
http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf
"The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards. Regarding this paper, its strange treatment explains but does not excuse its contents. While also failing to articulate a hypothesis or in fact any solid criticism of the NIST Report, it nevertheless departs from ordinary scientific communications. It has no results or discussion; it includes of references to unreviewed and unreliable works, such as those in the journal of 9/11 Studies; and it features combative language including unsubstantiated allegations of negligence at NIST. "
The article still makes claims about the towers being "essentially in free fall" and "No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…" ! How stupid are these people?
An environmental journal? Thats it? According to you he has actual physical proof and this is all he does?
A quick scan sees that he is still dishonestly quote mining Erik Swartz. Debunkers pointed that one out years ago... The guy is a crackpot.
If this is the best the troothers can do after seven years then I think you guys need to find another conspiracy.
That's my point. Jones most certainly has a conclusion here and is just taking what he can get as evidence to lead to his preconceived notion. This much was clear early on when he would only accept thermite as an explanation for the elements he found. It doesn't matter how many of his theories are debunked, or how many times people point out the problems in his work he will keep coming up with new ideas to push his beliefs. Did you read his first document? It was bad. Debunkers tore holes in it. Now he claims he has actual nanothermite in samples. A fool would just instantly accept what this guy says.
Even still, if he actually had sound evidence on his side why was he so evasive? He was a scientist, he knows the deal with peer review.
What an odd thing to say.
This is the only list I can find at the moment. It's from jref.
"
2001/12 - Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation - JOM (Vol. 53, No. 12) - full article
2002/01 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 128, No. 1) - full article
2002/07 - David E. Newland, David Cebon - Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse? - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 128, No. 7)
2002/08 - Bernard Monahan - World Trade Center Collapse—Civil Engineering Considerations - Practice Periodical On Structural Design And Construction (Vol. 7, No. 3)
2002/10 - James G. Quintiere, Marino di Marzo, Rachel Becker - A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers - Fire Safety Journal (Vol. 37, No. 7)
2002/11 - Lu Xinzheng, Jiang Jianjing - Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact - Proceedings of the International Conference on Protection of Structures Against Hazard, 14 − 15 November 2002, Singapore - full paper
2003/05 - Venkatash K. R. Kodur - Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers - Proceedings of the CIB-CTBUH International Conference on Tall Buildings, 8 - 10 May 2003, Kuala Lumpur - full paper
2003/07 - Tomasz Wierzbicki, Xiaoqing Teng - How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center - International Journal of Impact Engineering (Vol. 28, No. 6)
2003/10 - Asif S. Usmani, Yun Chi Chung, Jose L. Torero - How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory - Fire Safety Journal (Vol. 38, No. 6) - full article
2003/11 - Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl - World Trade Center Collapse, Field Investigation and Analysis - Proceedings of the Ninth Arab Structural Engineering Conference, 29 November – 1 December 2003, Abu Dhabi - full paper
2005/01 - Yukihiro Omika, Eiji Fukuzawa, Norihide Koshika, Hiroshi Morikawa, Ryusuke Fukuda - Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks - Journal of Structural Engineering (Vol. 131, No. 1)
2005/01 - Howard R. Baum, Ronald G. Rehm - A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics - Proceedings of the Combustion Institute (Vol. 30, No. 2) - full article
2005/03 - Genady P. Cherepanov - September 11 And Fracture Mechanics - A Retrospective - International Journal of Fracture (Vol. 132, No. 2)
2005/06 - Asif S. Usmani - Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 131, No. 6)
2005/07 - Jeremy Chang, Andrew H. Buchanan, Peter J. Moss - Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses - Fire and Materials (Vol. 29, No. 4)
2005/10 - Mohammed R. Karim, Michelle S. Hoo Fatt - Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 131, No. 10)
2006/09 - Genady P. Cherepanov - Mechanics of the WTC collapse - International Journal of Fracture (Vol. 141, No. 1-2)
2007/03 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure - Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 133, No. 3) - full article
2007/11 - Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, Andre Marshall - Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1 - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (Vol. 21, No. 6)
2008/01 - Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann - An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-1 - Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities (Vol. 22, No. 1) - full article
2008/03 - Keith A. Seffen - Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 134, No. 2) - full article
2008 - Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson - What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York - Journal of Engineering Mechanics (Vol. 134, in press) - full article
Of these twenty-two, six were written after the release of the NIST report. Three of these mention the NIST report and make no objections to its conclusions (Bazant, Irfanoglu and Bazant), one does not mention the NIST report (Seffen) and two I don't have access to anymore (Cherepanov and Wang).
"
If you want the original papers (I'm sure you'll want to read them all) here is the original post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317
Clearly you have made a mistake.
I think the request has always been to see Jones' work in a relevant, respected science journal. You know.. like the ones above.
There has been molten metal and soft steel. I have yet to see evidence of melted steel.
So, once again, can you please back this claim up?
Miragememories
Registered Member
shaman said:
I think the 'real' request, has always been; is it possible to debunk Jones's work
to the point that his goal of a proper investigation is no longer reasonable?
MM
Last edited:
You can't debunk Jesus.
.. but Jesus isn't debating with us.Well said.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
**************************************************
2. A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
**************************************************
http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones
Below is the original article from the New York Times. Yes, in the article, it blames 'diesel fuel', a theory long since discredited even by the official story, but the observation of evaporated steel is the important point here:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63
Last edited:
Miragememories
Registered Member
shaman said:
It's difficult to hold any respect for a person who resorts to constant slander as a means of discrediting the responses of individuals, especially brave public people like Dr. Steven Jones.
shaman. You are just stating spin as fact.
Understandably, Brigham Young University was concerned that the controversy surrounding Dr. Jones's revelations would have a negative effect on the university's reputation.
Given the world attention a BYU-based science news story attacking the Official Story would have received, it was not a surprise when BYU chose to avoid a long expensive investigation of Dr. Jones's findings, instead agreeing to Dr. Jones's retirement, while allowing him to continue to use BYU facilities for independent research.
16 months later, Dr. Jones, as of May 2008, was still sharing a BYU office with several professors.
He was doing research in a BYU lab as an outside user and a student works with him.
Obviously, there is no acrimony between BYU and Dr. Steven Jones.
MM
I'd like to add that Steven Jones -welcomed- the possibility of an investigation, as he felt it to be a good chance to clear his name. I was not aware that Steven Jones was still working at BYU, however.
Perhaps the reviewers weren't interested in being put on 'paid leave', as was Steven Jones, or outright fired as was Kevin Ryan. Ryan Mackey himself has been thoroughly discredited:
************************************************
Maintaining the Mirage:
A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory
of the Demolition Deniers
A critique of Ryan Mackey's essay: "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin's Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation"
************************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
************************************************
John Lear vs. Ryan Mackey on Flying Boeing
767s Really, Really Fast Near Sea Level by John Lear
Posted September 24, 2008
Editor's note: this email exchange below from August 28, 2008 provides some important information on the question of whether a Boeing 767 could really fly at 542+ mph near sea level as NIST and other official/media/propaganda sources say it did on 9/11, based on the study of [fake] videos.
Anthony [Lawson, allegedly a British ex-pat and director/producer of TV commercials]:
Well, well, well!
Ryan Mackey's piece confirms the research done for my video: "Impossible Speed and Impact -- Busted!"
John Lear, retired airliner pilot and son of Bill Lear of Motorola and Learjet fame:
Good afternoon Anthony,
My comments are in blue...
************************************************
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=Lear_vs_Mackey_0908
Then why was he sent materials immediately after the attack? That's what he said in the video. This raises a bigger question: why was Stephen Jones, who had no association with proper engineering studies in over 15 years, sent samples from the WTC a day after the attack?
These two crimes are not associated. It is a bit of a misnomer to pick them up.
Not. In. The. Slightest. Aluminum cladding is not adjacent to the steel girders? How do you know?
As for the melting, very simply:
In other words, in the pile, as I've already said. Thermite, or nanothermite, or megananoPowerRangers thermite is not going to keep the steel molten after literally months of being underground. What you have is almost certainly a simple kiln effect. Bury the fire with enough air in a constricted space and it will burn hotter. Direct and reasonable.
Then I'm sure he'll be happy to give his material to an independent lab to investigate.
You have provided no links to any reference material that I could use to evaluate your claim. Nor, moreover, has Mr Ryan excluded other possible sources of these materials. Nor has Dr. Jones provided his samples to other laboratories. Which all combine to make me very suspicious: is it not a more reasonable scenario for a small conspiracy to exist with one or two partners, than for a larger one with thousands?
Ah. Then you will refrain from making 'personal' attacks on the government of the United States? After all, this also corresponds to Cicero's dictum.
Yet, I feel I have to explore this in more detail. Why was Jones sent these materials a day after the attacks? Who collected them, and why? What is or was Dr Jones' involvement with Kevin Ryan, before the attacks? Why will he not provide them for independent verification?
Best,
Geoff
I'm sorry: where is this true? Refrain from colouring the argument, please.
Only 511 (ambiguous) experts? That's not much when you consider the WTC was the most viewed collapse in history. How many of those 511 are even top of their field?
Take the sum total of highly qualified architects and engineers on the entire planet, then subtract 511 from it. That is assuming those 511 are even highly qualified in the first place.
Look, it's quite simple. In science, if there is compelling evidence for something, it earns consensus. For you to say it requires bravery to establish a theory is simply stupid. You can't use this assumption to explain the lack of support in intellectual circles for your silly paranoia. Many experts ARE retired and still don't exactly come out in support. If retired people aren't doing it, well then there's obviously isn't any controversy about 9/11 in scientific circles.
To suggest that the government could not only organize and coverup the events of 9/11, but get all the experts that matter to be silent from now till far into the future is really stretching even your warped reality.
Why would you expect there to be such a list of skeptics? There is simply no controversy in scientific circles about 9/11, so it's not like the experts need to be proactive on this matter like you would with nutjob conspiracy theorists.
The fact you have a list of only 511 ambiguous 'experts' is a speck of dust in the overall scientific community. It's nothing.
I guess we will wait to see if truthers make an impact in science in 2050. I'm not holding my breath.
The issue is far from complex. It is really simple. You are a fantasist who continually lies to keep the fantasy going.
Stephen Jones is unscientific. Let me give you just a couple of examples off the top of my head:
He states that angled cut beams originated during collapse. Now consider that we have numerous images of clean up workers cutting beams AFTER the collapse. An honest and rational mind concludes that the one picture Stephen Jones used is a picture from a beam cut after the collapse by workers in ground zero.
In another picture, Stephen Jones shows firefighters hiddled over a hole in ground zero which seems to be emitting a light. Steven Jones claims that this is proof of molten steel. A rational mind would ask why it could be molten steel if firefighters are hovering their faces over the hole? Have you ever hovered your face over a barbeque? It's highly uncomfortable. Now imaging hovering your face over a heated pool of molten steel...
Stephen Jones claims that things like Sodium being found in the WTC dust is proof of thermite/thermate. Yet a rational mind will say that sodium was commonplace throughout the WTC even without thermite/thermate.
This is only scratching the surface of Stephen Jones lies which can easily be debunked by laymans. I'd really like a bunch of experts to look at his work closely and debunk it much better than I ever could. Perhaps it's already been done...
They are anecdotal reports of glowing and liquid metal where it is referred to as steel. How did the people know it was steel? Firemen and other rescue workers are not able to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminum from looking at it.
Some of the reports are dubious as to whether it was glowing metal or molten metal. For example, pulling on a beam which is supposed to be near or at melting temperature? The metal would be glowing hot and getting extremely soft. It would not be a matter of just pulling it out.
That's WTC7. We are talking about WTC1+2. Evaporated still is a ridiculous claim. Do you realize the temperatures needed for that? Logically if there was some evaporated steel we would have plenty of evidence of melted steel, which we don't.
There are quotes there from an article but no link to the source. I want to see where the claim comes from originally.
As usual you have done a few minutes work at your favorite conspiracy site but have not understood what you are reading. Mackey addresses these criticisms in the document I originally linked to.
Someone disputing one of Mackey's posts regarding flight 77 doesn't constitute a thorough discrediting. If that were the case we would have stopped discussing Jones after the first paragraph of his first document and ended the thread on page 1.
If that's true, can you repost that link?
John Lear is more then just a 'someone' when it comes to planes. But I believe most of the thorough discrediting was done by Jim Hoffman in the first link I gave:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
I'm certainly willing to hear any claims of Mackey's that you believe have merit. With Jim Hoffman's critique of his work, I think I'll be able to make easy work of them. To tell you the honest truth, I wish I'd taken a closer look at it before, as it would have helped with some of the arguments that official story believers have used in the past...
Why the molten metal wasn't aluminum
Alright, let's see what we can agree on. I assume you agree with the following. Even official story believers don't have a problem with it:
"A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
The official story argument is that it is assumed to be aluminum. Christopher Bollyn makes a compelling case why this can't be so in the beginning of his "Open Letter to the NIST 9/11 WTC Investigators *PIC*":
*************************************
MOLTEN METAL IS NOT ALUMINUM
The composition of the unknown molten metal is discussed:
"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)
Having seen molten aluminum at the temperature suggested by the NIST report, i.e. about 650 degrees Celsius, I learned that molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight. In fact it appears to have the same color as aluminum foil due to its low emissivity in daylight conditions.
The flowing molten metal coming from the eastern corner of the 81st floor of WTC 2, however, appears distinctly yellow or bright orange in the daylight and when it breaks up, it appears white. Therefore, the photographic evidence proves that this molten metal cannot be aluminum.
So, I should ask, exactly what is it about the behavior of this molten metal that "suggests it could have been aluminum," as the NIST authors wrote?
The "molten metal" seen spilling from the WTC 2 is mentioned 27 times in this appendix alone and it is usually accompanied by a phrase "assumed to be aluminum." Elsewhere it is described as "possibly aluminum," and sometimes, simply as "molten aluminum." (e.g. pp. 412-413)
How can the WTC scientists at NIST assume for one minute that this molten metal is aluminum?
Is it not, in fact, much more likely that this is molten iron?
The color of the molten metal falling from the 81st floor of the WTC 2 proves that the metal is NOT aluminum but is more likely to be iron.
Molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, as professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University wrote in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, at all temperatures whether in solid or liquid forms. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly, so that in broad daylight conditions in air, it appears silvery-gray according to experiments done at BYU. [Jones, 2006])
In his paper "Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Jones wrote that the use of Thermite, or a derivative such as Thermate, is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower) prior to its collapse.
We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well – and it appears silvery. Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescence) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the Thermite reaction.
*************************************
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/89093
Alright, let's see what we can agree on. I assume you agree with the following. Even official story believers don't have a problem with it:
"A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html
The official story argument is that it is assumed to be aluminum. Christopher Bollyn makes a compelling case why this can't be so in the beginning of his "Open Letter to the NIST 9/11 WTC Investigators *PIC*":
*************************************
MOLTEN METAL IS NOT ALUMINUM
The composition of the unknown molten metal is discussed:
"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)
Having seen molten aluminum at the temperature suggested by the NIST report, i.e. about 650 degrees Celsius, I learned that molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight. In fact it appears to have the same color as aluminum foil due to its low emissivity in daylight conditions.
The flowing molten metal coming from the eastern corner of the 81st floor of WTC 2, however, appears distinctly yellow or bright orange in the daylight and when it breaks up, it appears white. Therefore, the photographic evidence proves that this molten metal cannot be aluminum.
So, I should ask, exactly what is it about the behavior of this molten metal that "suggests it could have been aluminum," as the NIST authors wrote?
The "molten metal" seen spilling from the WTC 2 is mentioned 27 times in this appendix alone and it is usually accompanied by a phrase "assumed to be aluminum." Elsewhere it is described as "possibly aluminum," and sometimes, simply as "molten aluminum." (e.g. pp. 412-413)
How can the WTC scientists at NIST assume for one minute that this molten metal is aluminum?
Is it not, in fact, much more likely that this is molten iron?
The color of the molten metal falling from the 81st floor of the WTC 2 proves that the metal is NOT aluminum but is more likely to be iron.
Molten aluminum appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, as professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University wrote in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, at all temperatures whether in solid or liquid forms. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly, so that in broad daylight conditions in air, it appears silvery-gray according to experiments done at BYU. [Jones, 2006])
In his paper "Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Jones wrote that the use of Thermite, or a derivative such as Thermate, is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower) prior to its collapse.
We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well – and it appears silvery. Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescence) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the Thermite reaction.
*************************************
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/89093
Steven Jones knowledge of energetic materials and scientific methodology...
I already answered this, but you may not have seen it yet...
**********************************
Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.
**********************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2053739&postcount=1461
I already answered this, but you may not have seen it yet...
**********************************
Geoff, the buildings were brought down via some form of energy, whether it was fire or whether it was a controlled demolition. Steven Jones also has a bit of a history of going to where the evidence leads, regardless of its political correctness. In one case, he challenged the theory of an eminent scientist; and proved to be right. But it took a decade before people felt this way. Perhaps it will take a decade before the majority of scientists believe him when it comes to his theories on 9/11. All I know is that despite the fact that he was essentially given the boot from the university where he was a professor for going against the official story grain, he is still going strong. And while people may criticize him for his religious beliefs (yes, I know, he believes that Jesus Christ made it to America, something that I think is dubious), I believe that sometimes it takes something like a belief in a higher power and in the virtues of what some call altruism to be so criticized and yet continue to repeat his findings.
**********************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2053739&postcount=1461
- Status