molten aluminum did pour out of the pot, therefore it was above the melting point for aluminum. 

Were you really fooled by the few globs that made it out of the pot before the bulk of it solidified? If the material had been at a temperature at which metal would glow, why isn't the steel pot glowing?

Is this real science?

Is it even honest science?

... the purpose of this experiment.
It was to show that at the temperature at which aluminium melts (at which it could have poured from WTC) it doesn't glow. It couldn't be be much hotter at WTC as fires rarely reached 625C (maximum 1000C but only for couple of moments, definately not just before collapse).

You see - that is the point - to show that there had to be enormous temperature (>1500C) inside to make metal glow (steel glows at melting point, aluminium doesn't). So there had to be some kind of very egzothermic reaction (thermite is a hypothesis).

"If the material had been at a temperature at which metal would glow, why isn't the steel pot glowing?"

Stop commenting before you embarass yourself further.

I can only think of one reason; it's not hot enough to glow! :-)

That pretty much debunks those results.

What is so important about Jones' bogus aluminum argument?
________________________________________

Strange Coincidence

Michael Zebuhr, the student ST911 member who was killed under suspicious circumstances, was the same guy who did the "glowing aluminum" experiment with Dr. Judy Wood that casted doubt upon Dr. Steven E. Jones (apparently bogus) thermite hypothesis.

Strange, and also creepy.

Actually, looking at it some more-- the timing is suspicious. Zebuhr and Wood did their experiment in late Feb 2006. Zebuhr was killed a few weeks later.

________________________________________

So, who will it be this time for showing that aluminum glows?

The entire subject of glowing aluminum is a non issue.  It is HIGHLY reflective just like mercury, even while molten.  In daylight conditions it is silvery-gray.

Are you trying to convince us that iron doesn't glow? It's not glowing in the picture you show.

At 1000°C, the emissivity of aluminum is greater than the emissivity of iron. That is, at 1,000°C, aluminum (in atmospheric conditions) actually glows brighter than iron does.

What you are doing is essentially showing us a piece of ice to "prove" that water is always a solid.

You don't seem to understand the basic physical properties of materials. If you say the temperature is hot enough for iron to glow, it is certainly hot enough for aluminum to glow. Consider the following:

source: the Life of Michael Zebuhr

source: the International Aluminium Institute

I said nothing about iron. I am talking about the molten metal seen pouring out of WTC2, in the DAYLIGHT @ approx 9:59AM on 9/11/2001.

The first image is in a darkened lab, showing aluminum being melted by connecting a tungsten boat to a current. Aluminum will reflect the ambient light that surrounds it, like a mirror. To state that it is glowing purely as a function of its temperature is MISLEADING. You can even see specular highlights on the surface of the beaded molten aluminum, reinforcing its high reflectivity.

The second image again is not in daylight, and as it is in reference to industrial casting.

At Room Temperature, polished aluminum is reflective. If you polish iron, it too is reflective. So, I ask again, what is your point?

If your hypothesis is that some material might be molten iron, you must apply that same test to aluminum, if you're going to try putting that over on us.

I do not disagree that polished aluminum is shiny at room temperature. But what does that have to do with the forth-order derivative of the price of beans in Tibet?

If you said nothing about iron, why not? If you are trying to sell us on the idea that iron played a role, here, wouldn't it be a good idea to start talking about iron and putting iron to the same test you are asking of other materials? If you illustrate what aluminum looks like at 600°C, why not show us what iron looks like at that temperature?

I will ask one more time: What is your point?

Molten aluminum is silvery-grey when poured in DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS, and as such, it could not have been the molten metal seen POURING out of WTC2 in broad DAYLIGHT.

NIST claims it is aluminum.  They have proven that they are peddling junk science at best. 

... the purpose of this experiment.
It was to show that at the temperature at which aluminium melts (at which it could have poured from WTC) it doesn't glow. It couldn't be be much hotter at WTC as fires rarely reached 625C (maximum 1000C but only for couple of moments, definately not just before collapse).

You see - that is the point - to show that there had to be enormous temperature (>1500C) inside to make metal glow (steel glows at melting point, aluminium doesn't). So there had to be some kind of very egzothermic reaction (thermite is a hypothesis).

So, you are saying... that if it can't be aluminum, it certainly can't be iron or steel!

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

First of all you have take into consideration that pouring aluminum would cool itself down and stop glowing (especially from the surface - it had been shown in other experiment).

Second, it is very unprobable that it was aluminium because it would pour away way before it started to glow. There is no such problem with molten steel - it starts to glow just when it melts.

Third, even if it was aluminum (which is very unprobable, it just doesn't behave/look like that), it would need to be at a very high temperature, higher than temperatures estimated by NIST, so it would also point at the hypothesis of thermate.

Here you go.

Hey, Researcher488 or Professor Jones!

If the NIST pics and your videos of molten WTC metal are possibly or probably faked (NIST says so in part), then why is this molten metal thing so significant? If the images are bogus, then the molten metal thing is also irrelevant. Were there ANY eye witnesses to these multi-faceted or no-faceted but fascinating fleetingly-furious flurry phenomena?

Your whole episode with Dr. Judy Wood (or NIST) on glowing aluminum versus glowing iron reminds me of an essay question on my final exam in chemistry... Bonus Question: “Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?”

Most of the other students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. My answer (for which I received an A+ -- thank you very much) was as follows:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. We can safely assume that, once a soul enters Hell, the soul will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. (Possibly partial proof: We're still here.)

How many souls are entering Hell? Let's look at the religions that exist on Earth today. Most religions state that, if you're not a member of their religion, then you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one religion, and since no one belongs to more than one religion, I therefore logically find that ALL souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates being what they are, I find that the number of souls in Hell must therefore increase geometrically (see, e.g., Thomas Robert Malthus).

When we analyze the necessary rate of change in the volume of Hell (to avoid dire consequences for Hell -- and possibly for Earth too), if the temperature and pressure in Hell are to remain the same, then the volume of Hell must expand in EXACT geometric proportion to the number of new souls that enter Hell in Malthusian progression. This is an exceedingly easy extrapolation of Boyle's Law.

I find that this gives us two (and only two) theoretical possibilities:

1) If the volume of Hell is expanding at a SLOWER rate than the geometrically proportionate rate at which souls are entering Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will INCREASE -- until all Hell breaks loose [yes, it does glow -- trust me]; OR,

2) If the volume of Hell is expanding at a FASTER rate than the geometrically proportionate rate at which souls are entering Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will DECREASE -- until Hell freezes over [no, no glow].

SO WHICH IS IT? If we accept as gospel the theoretical declaration to me by Teresa, during my Freshman year, that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and if we take into account the fact that I slept with Theresa last night, then #2 must be true. Thus, I find that Hell is exothermic -- and has therefore ALREADY frozen over.

The corollary of this now-proven theory is that, since Hell has frozen over, it necessarily follows that Hell is NOT accepting ANY new souls and is therefore virtually nonexistent... with Heaven, I find, being the ONLY option.

The truth of this theoretical corollary also provides “hard evidence” for the existence of a divine being. This may explain why, last night [before the glow], Teresa kept exclaiming, "Oh, my god! Oh, my god!"

~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ... ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ... ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ...

Does this qualify me to be a Full Member in ST911 (via the ‘equivalency’ exception)? Or would this be a violation of your First Commandment in ST911? Pray tell, Professor Jones, what’s the answer?

(Hell May Have No Flurry Like a Glowman Spawned.)

This "exothermic/endothetmic" joke has been around a long time, so the author of this post, "Albert E. Glowfinger, Professedly Emeritus". whom I infer to be Morgan Reynolds, should not present it as though it originated with him! There are telling signs that this emanated from Morgan, but I will be glad to stand corrected if "Glowfinger" wishes to declare his proper identity and can prove the author is not the one whom I have named.

Dear Professor Fetzer,

Are you saying that you originated this semi-humorous, semi-purposeful prose? Based on personal experience? If so, then you may want to sue Albert E. Glowfinger for plagiarism (or for trademark insingement)!

Morgan Reynolds? Nah… He’s good, but not THAT good! And this was too subtle for Morgan. Semi-blatant ad hominem, maybe... Gritty and corny b-ad hominy, never! (Can anyone say "add harmony"?)

In addition, Dr. Fetzer, are you too familiar with that faintly glowing golden hue as all Hell begins to break loose? If so, then we may have sum thing in common...

(BTW, are the WTC pics & videos of the furious flurries of glowing molten metal faked or real? Do you have ANY eyewitnesses [e.g., who shot the pics & videos])?

Every person that did the NIST investigation signed it. If you had read the document, you would have known that.