Prof. Jones Destroys Recent NIST Claim in Controlled Experiment

Dr. Steven Jones has conducted an experiment on a recent NIST claim to test NIST's validity here:

"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."

NIST asserts that molten aluminum, mixed with "solid organic materials" will cause the aluminum to glow orange, whereas this would otherwise be impossible without extreme temperatures beyond the range of the office/jet fuel fires in the WTC.

Dr. Jones has directly tested NIST's claim and proved it false.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


Videos demonstrating what molten aluminum with organic material actually looks like can be found here:

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...


Notice that what you see in those videos does not in the least resemble the molten material seen pouring out of WTC2 just minutes before its collapse.

I've absorbed a lot of information today, and I'm beginning to lean in a new - and uncomfortable- direction. But just the same, I wish the combined length of those videos were longer than 28 seconds, and with more zoom.

How exactly does this experiment recreate conditions in the towers?

It sounds like they played around with aluminum for a bit and called it an experiment to make it sound like something greater than it was.

It seems no attempt was made to recreate what conditions might have been, they just heated up aluminum, and then threw plastic and wood chips in.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

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.

This is more like a lab in a high school chemistry class, not a scientific study.

Where is the control? Where are the details, like how much different materials were used and what the results were?

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.

Without more vigorous tests, this study proves nothing other than that in their created conditions aluminum did not glow orange. It tells us nothing about the orange substance coming out of the WTC.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by LeftBehind]

Mr Jones did nothing but destroy some cookware it looks like.That looks like guys in a weld or fabrication shop. Man, I have totally changed my mind now.



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 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.

A double blind study on whether or not hydrocarbons make aluminum glow orange?! Wtf? ROFL

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

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.

Hydrocarbons will not make aluminum glow orange.

If you read Jones' article, you would have picked up that they don't even mix. Like oil and water, he shows.

The worst part of all this is that there is absolutely NO scientific precedent for what NIST is saying. I promise you this. You cannot find me an article anywhere, even referencing in passing that burning hydrocarbons make just-molten aluminum magically glow orange, something that molten steel and thermite do readily.

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.

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....

Just a quick question, esdad:

Do you even know what Dr. Jones was showing in the above clips?

[edit on 7-9-2006 by bsbray11]

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.

But that's exactly why it's relevant.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

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.

You see, instead of having a few guys, who are trying to prove NIST wrong ,i.e bias, perform one experiment twice, you would have researchers doing experiments on aluminum and debris without telling them the stated goal of the study.

Or even use two teams.

Then, you have them do multiple experiments under different conditions. A control group showing the properties of aluminum at different temps for different amount of time. Then you do the same experiments with different plastics, metals, cloth, and so on.

You laugh at the idea of a double blind study, and yet think a theory is destroyed because of one experiment with a blow torch, with no data provided?

Right.

Speaking of data, why does Jones not provide any data at all? If he's actually trying to prove something you'd think he would provide the temperatures he heated the materials to, or how much of each. Instead we get an anecdote and two videos and this is supposed to prove something?

The only thing this experiment destroys is Jones' dubious credibility. He shows no scientific rigour at all in this experiment.

Hydrocarbons will not make aluminum glow orange.

Really, what proof do you have? Do you have any source for this other than the experiment under discussion?

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.

What does the above have to do with anything?

Why do you insist on discussing me instead of the issues presented.

It would be great for you to actually discuss a topic instead of personally attacking me almost every time I post.

Please keep your insults and personal attacks to yourself, thanks.


Or peharps you could explain why demanding rigourous scientific standards to prove something is "a new level of ridiculous".