Hilarious Steven Jones article

[papasmurf]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I think we should all read it, then come on here and smear it and make fun of it.

It will be a jolly good time.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

1. He actually thinks the molten material flowing from the southeast corner of wtc2 could be molten iron from a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum mixed with bubble gum!


2. He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

3. He thinks the destruction of the core collumns into hundreds of pieces is unaccounted for! Those fires were HUGE!

4. He thinks there is molten metal in the basements of all three buildings! NIST didn't find any!


What is the matter with this guy?

I want to tear this guy to shreds; he is truther trash. Somebody give me something to read that totally destroys this paper!


Thanks for showing me the light JREF!

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What a weak attempt at a troll...

And the first thing you post after your suspension, too. Huh...

[~enigma~]

What a weak attempt at a troll...
weak attempt at humanity you mean...

[LashL]

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3905084&postcount=275)

Hmm. It appears that you have significant difficulties with veracity, so I see no point in even pretending to take this thread seriously.

[papasmurf]

Hmm. It appears that you have significant difficulties with veracity, so I see no point in even pretending to take this thread seriously.

Well, did you read the paper? I just want to laugh about how funny it is. I can't believe millions of people listen to this guy. I read all 41 pages and found it to be utter rubbish. Nonsense.

What do you guys think? Don't comment unless you've read the paper, otherwise you won't understand the jokes.

[Smackety]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I think we should all read it, then come on here and smear it and make fun of it.

It will be a jolly good time.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

1. He actually thinks the molten material flowing from the southeast corner of wtc2 could be molten iron from a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum mixed with bubble gum!


2. He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

3. He thinks the destruction of the core collumns into hundreds of pieces is unaccounted for! Those fires were HUGE!

4. He thinks there is molten metal in the basements of all three buildings! NIST didn't find any!


What is the matter with this guy?

I want to tear this guy to shreds; he is truther trash. Somebody give me something to read that totally destroys this paper!


Thanks for showing me the light JREF!

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!

There is a Conspiracy Theory section of the Forums. If you start reading some of the threads and links therein you will find exactly what you are afraid of. It will take weeks to slog through it all, but I am confident that every possible question has been asked and answered at least a dozen times. Happy Reading!

[papasmurf]

There is a Conspiracy Theory section of the Forums. If you start reading some of the threads and links therein you will find exactly what you are afraid of. It will take weeks to slog through it all, but I am confident that every possible question has been asked and answered at least a dozen times. Happy Reading!

Conspiracy section?

Where?

Wait, what am i doing here again?

[LashL]

Well, did you read the paper? Yes, several iterations of it over the past couple of years - he's edited it several times.

I can't believe millions of people listen to this guy.

Nobody with two or more arcing brain cells listens to this guy. And your obvious attempt at trolling is, well, pathetic.

Here's something to occupy your time (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=steven+jones+site%3Arandi.org&btnG=Search&meta=) viz Jones and discussions about him here. Read that instead of wasting others' time here.

[Smackety]

Conspiracy section?

Where?

Wait, what am i doing here again?

Well, based on this admission that you do not want answers, I would say trolling. I am not really the person to ask though - what do you think you are doing here?

[papasmurf]

Yes, several iterations of it over the past couple of years - he's edited it several times.



Nobody with two or more arcing brain cells listens to this guy. And your obvious attempt at trolling is, well, pathetic.

Here's something to occupy your time (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=steven+jones+site%3Arandi.org&btnG=Search&meta=) viz Jones and discussions about him here. Read that instead of wasting others' time here.

I've looked through the threads, nothing substantial on Steven Jones. I made this thread to discuss specific issues in the paper i cited. Since you have read, would you be so kind to name 3 significant fallacies in the paper
?

btw, steven jones can edit his paper as much as he wants, just as NIST does all the time on every single aspect of their story.

Good night everyone. I can't wait to wake up tomorrow and read all this hilarious stuff about Jones and his loony thermate theory.

[Smackety]

I've looked through the threads, nothing substantial on Steven Jones. I made this thread to discuss specific issues in the paper i cited. Since you have read, would you be so kind to name 3 significant fallacies in the paper
?

btw, steven jones can edit his paper as much as he wants, just as NIST does all the time on every single aspect of their story.

Good night everyone. I can't wait to wake up tomorrow and read all this hilarious stuff about Jones and his loony thermate theory.

you looked through all the Jones threads in 8 minutes?

[LashL]

I've looked through the threads, nothing substantial on Steven Jones. <snipped the rest of the blather>

Clearly, you haven't read the threads, then.

But I'm all out of troll food so, no, I am not going to respond to your nonsense any further. Have fun under the bridge.

[DC]

He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

LOL your a comedian?

[defaultdotxbe]

He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

LOL your a comedian?
he seems to think he is, i would have thought his sense of humor (if thats what you can call it) would be right up your alley

[Minadin]

Well, did you read the paper? I just want to laugh about how funny it is. I can't believe millions of people listen to this guy. I read all 41 pages and found it to be utter rubbish. Nonsense.

What do you guys think? Don't comment unless you've read the paper, otherwise you won't understand the jokes.


I know you're trying to be funny, but what you are saying is some serious Truth(tm). Here's how I will agree with you, you might not understand all of this:

1. I agree that the paper is hilarious / ridiculous.
2. I can't believe millions of people listen to this guy, either. In fact, I don't, given how small and fringe the 9/11 conspiracy cult is.
3. I've read more than 41 pages of Steven Jones tripe and am not surprised that you found each and every one of these particular ones to be complete garbage. That's his M.O.

[Quad4_72]

Well, did you read the paper? I just want to laugh about how funny it is. I can't believe millions of people listen to this guy.

And by millions you mean a handful of very paranoid loons correct?

[Jonnyclueless]

Someone call the idiot police.

[papasmurf]

Now this was boring. I wake up expecting to see at least 1 thing wrong in the Steven Jones article, and all i get is "someone call the idiot police".

Please. I would love for you to share some of your favorite hilarious moments of Steven's article here, that's what this thread is for.

[~enigma~]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_132574896f9dc5fc14.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13324)

[pomeroo]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I think we should all read it, then come on here and smear it and make fun of it.

It will be a jolly good time.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

1. He actually thinks the molten material flowing from the southeast corner of wtc2 could be molten iron from a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum mixed with bubble gum!


2. He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

3. He thinks the destruction of the core collumns into hundreds of pieces is unaccounted for! Those fires were HUGE!

4. He thinks there is molten metal in the basements of all three buildings! NIST didn't find any!


What is the matter with this guy?

I want to tear this guy to shreds; he is truther trash. Somebody give me something to read that totally destroys this paper!


Thanks for showing me the light JREF!

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!


What's the matter with Jones? He's a crackpot who was rebuked by his department for failing to maintain professional standards. For years, he has tweaked a contaminated dust sample without coming up with anything of consequence.

What's the matter with you? You're a run-of-the-mill conspiracy liar, ignorant and ineducable, who brings absolutely nothing new to the table.

[pomeroo]

He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

LOL your a comedian?


I keep wondering what you ignorant liars know that the demolition experts don't. Oh, right--absolutely nothing.

[pomeroo]

Now this was boring. I wake up expecting to see at least 1 thing wrong in the Steven Jones article, and all i get is "someone call the idiot police".

Please. I would love for you to share some of your favorite hilarious moments of Steven's article here, that's what this thread is for.


Hmmm. What did Jones get wrong? That's a tough one...

How about...

No thermite or thermate was used anywhere in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. There is no physical evidence to support Jones's fantasy, thermite doesn't behave the way he pretends it does, and thermite is not used in demolition.

Yup, Jones is a hilarious fraud.

[Mancman]

This is hilarious:

Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

Jones himself says it looks to be 1000 C. Thus molten iron is ruled out. Self debunking!

And 1000 C is certainly NOT above what an office fire can produce.

[papasmurf]

This is hilarious:



Jones himself says it looks to be 1000 C. Thus molten iron is ruled out. Self debunking!

And 1000 C is certainly NOT above what an office fire can produce.

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?

[pomeroo]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?



Evidence for the use of thermite/thermate in the Towers is nonexistent. Jones and the mindless jackasses who swallow his snake oil are clueless about the properties and uses of these substances. You have failed badly.

[~enigma~]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot.you apparently never spoke to any firefighters.
It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C. Again you never spoke to a firefighter have you? Typically an office fire is about 810 C or so.
You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000CAgain, did you ever speak to a firefighter? Not even going to waste time addressing the WWTC sine you are intent on arguing but I will ask you what temperatures did firefighters report at the pentagon? As far as jet fuel, how do you expect water to be used when they use foam at airports since water is noneffective?
Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C. And your point is that an entire column must reach 1000 C in order for one spot on the column to be weakened?We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutesHmm....how long was the jet fuel at the pentagon said to have been burning by the firefighters? Have you spoken to a firefighter yet?It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.Who said anything different. The temperature would be the same but if you think the intensity would...your fooling yourself.

[WildCat]

It's a good thing there's always kids turning 13, otherwise Jones wouldn't have anyone left in his cult.

[volatile]

Is this the guy with an "engineering degree"?

[~enigma~]

Is this the guy with an "engineering degree"?
double degree even...

[volatile]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.

[~enigma~]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.
Guess he never heard of intensity or duration.

[papasmurf]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.

[Mancman]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

Then you remain wrong.

Cardington Tests:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

Steel reached over 1100 C - just from burning wood. In some of the beams, 600 C was reached in under 20 minutes.


As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

This is such nonsense. So part of the beams melted, but the beams were still intact. What the hell are you saying. Jesus H.


You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

A normal office fire will surpass jet fuel in temperature.

Support your claim that it would take hours to reach 1000 C. I know you can't. I can disprove it however.

In the Cardington Tests above, several of the beams surpassed 1000 C in around 45 minutes. Just from wood.

Jet fuel contains 135,000 BTU's per gallon. That's about 20,000 per pound.
Wood containing no moisture contains around 8,600 BTU's per pound.

So you claim that it would 'take hours' to heat steel to 1000 C with jet fuel, when it takes less than 45 minutes using a fuel with less than half the energy content.

You sir, are a laughing stock.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?

More nonsense. You've got nothing.

[papasmurf]

you apparently never spoke to any firefighters.Again you never spoke to a firefighter have you? Typically an office fire is about 810 C or so.Again, did you ever speak to a firefighter? Not even going to waste time addressing the WWTC sine you are intent on arguing but I will ask you what temperatures did firefighters report at the pentagon? As far as jet fuel, how do you expect water to be used when they use foam at airports since water is noneffective?And your point is that an entire column must reach 1000 C in order for one spot on the column to be weakened?Hmm....how long was the jet fuel at the pentagon said to have been burning by the firefighters? Have you spoken to a firefighter yet?Who said anything different. The temperature would be the same but if you think the intensity would...your fooling yourself.

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[TheRedWorm]

nvm

[pomeroo]

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Get new material, liar. You babbled the same tripe when I slapped you silly. Yes, we get the idea that enigma totally destroyed your stupid fantasy. Now, tuck your tail between your legs, flap your arms, and do Da Twoofa!

[volatile]

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.

Enlighten me. What is the difference between heat and temperature?

And also tell me - would you put 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue?

[~enigma~]

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Typical truther hand wave of anything that proves his ideas beyond useless.

[WildCat]

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.
So you think the only thing burning was jet fuel? :jaw-dropp

Anything else?
Yes:

:dl:

[~enigma~]

Enlighten me. What is the difference between heat and temperature?

And also tell me - would you put 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue?If his barbecue was for the entire population of Szechwan province...

[volatile]

PapaSmurf - do you even know what term(a|i)te is, how it works and what it's used for? Or why it can't be used to cut vertical columns?

[~enigma~]

PapaSmurf - do you even know what term(a|i)te is, how it works and what it's used for? Or why it can't be used to cut vertical columns?
Really a useless question cause he will go on about nano-thermite and how it can be used as a shaped charge and then he will show some "thermite gun" that was patented in 2006 as proof that they were around in 2001.

[Evilgiraffe]

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.


Enlighten me. What is the difference between heat and temperature?


Bump for papasmurf. Anyone willing to bet that papasmurf will ignore or hand-wave this question?

[Alferd_Packer]

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes


Papasmurf, allow me to introduce you to the concept of heat release rate (http://www.doctorfire.com/hrr_prmr.html), or HRR.

HRR is generally measured in megawatts.

If we burn 3,000 gallons of jet fuel in 10 minutes, how many watts will that be?

[papasmurf]

Then you remain wrong.

Cardington Tests:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

Steel reached over 1100 C - just from burning wood. In some of the beams, 600 C was reached in under 20 minutes.




This is such nonsense. So part of the beams melted, but the beams were still intact. What the hell are you saying. Jesus H.




A normal office fire will surpass jet fuel in temperature.

Support your claim that it would take hours to reach 1000 C. I know you can't. I can disprove it however.

In the Cardington Tests above, several of the beams surpassed 1000 C in around 45 minutes. Just from wood.

Jet fuel contains 135,000 BTU's per gallon. That's about 20,000 per pound.
Wood containing no moisture contains around 8,600 BTU's per pound.

So you claim that it would 'take hours' to heat steel to 1000 C with jet fuel, when it takes less than 45 minutes using a fuel with less than half the energy content.

You sir, are a laughing stock.



More nonsense. You've got nothing.

Nope.

It is a well known fact that the fires in those buildings did not reach anything near 1000C. This has already been established.

Why look at other simulated fires, when the wtc trusses themselves were tested by underwriter laboratories in a simulation of the wtc fire, and the damage needed was not even close to that set forth by NIST. Hence why it disproves the NIST theory and why they only attach the information in an appendix at the end rather than use it to support their theory.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.

[Alferd_Packer]

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.

No. The energy released is an intrinsic property for a given combustion reaction. The temperature released is dependent on other factors.

under your interpetation, the temperature of a flame in a combustion reaction would be the same no matter what the initial conditions are. In other words, you are stating that the temperature would be the same no matter what the initial temperature of the reactants were.

[SDC]

This is the one who claims to be from Stevens Tech, correct? That is really, truly unlikely.

As bad as Bofors, who at least documented his degree. (Not that it helped.)

[volatile]

Nope.



That's it? That's your rebuttal of a detailed scientific study as to the behaviour of steel in fuel-specific fires? One word? That's your entire analysis of the post?

Would you submit a one-word answer as part of your "degree"?

[papasmurf]

For those of you who have never taken a thermodynamics or any real science or engineering class in their lives, and who STILL don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, i was able to find this video to help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-sPzshVnM

You don't have to thank me, you are welcome.

[volatile]

For those of you who have never taken a thermodynamics or any real science or engineering class in their lives, and who STILL don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, i was able to find this video to help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-sPzshVnM

You don't have to thank me, you are welcome.

How about you explain, in your own words, the "difference between heat and temperature", and why this means that 1 gallon of jet fuel would have the same effect on a steel girder as 1,000 gallons.

I'd be interesting to see whether that money your parents spent on your "engineering" degree was worth it.

[SDC]

If he's really from Stevens Tech, his use of a youtube video to help his point shows the low level to which the place has sunk.

[pomeroo]

Nope.

It is a well known fact that the fires in those buildings did not reach anything near 1000C. This has already been established.

Why look at other simulated fires, when the wtc trusses themselves were tested by underwriter laboratories in a simulation of the wtc fire, and the damage needed was not even close to that set forth by NIST. Hence why it disproves the NIST theory and why they only attach the information in an appendix at the end rather than use it to support their theory.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.


Yes, we know that Kevin Ryan is the cowardly fraud who dared to challenge Mark Roberts to debate and who crawled back under his rock when his bogus challenge was instantly accepted.

[pomeroo]

How about you explain, in your own words, the "difference between heat and temperature", and why this means that 1 gallon of jet fuel would have the same effect on a steel girder than 1,000 gallons.

I'd be interesting to see whether that money your parents spent on your "engineering" degree was worth it.



Imagine if schools really were handing out engineering degrees to such morons. How could you ever feel comfortable entering a tall building?

[Mancman]

Nope.

It is a well known fact that the fires in those buildings did not reach anything near 1000C. This has already been established.

Why look at other simulated fires, when the wtc trusses themselves were tested by underwriter laboratories in a simulation of the wtc fire, and the damage needed was not even close to that set forth by NIST. Hence why it disproves the NIST theory and why they only attach the information in an appendix at the end rather than use it to support their theory.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.

The Cardington tests were not computer simulations. They were real life, full scale tests. Many steel beams reached 1000 C or more in an hour or less. You are wrong.

Oh jeez, Kevin Ryan. This has gotta be a joke.

[pomeroo]

For those of you who have never taken a thermodynamics or any real science or engineering class in their lives, and who STILL don't understand the difference between heat and temperature, i was able to find this video to help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU-sPzshVnM

You don't have to thank me, you are welcome.


You're right: we don't have to thank you.

(from the Fordham Prep site)

Heat and temperature are two concepts that are often confused. They are related to each other because they are both related to the concept of thermal energy, as discussed in lesson 1-6 (http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho/lessons/lesson16.htm). As you may recall, thermal energy is the energy that a substance possesses due to the, kinetic energy, or motion of its molecules. Three factors affect the amount of thermal energy that a substance has:
1) Temperature - Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. An increase in temperature results in an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules and an increase in thermal energy. It is fair to say that temperature and thermal energy vary directly, but they are not the same thing.
2) Mass - Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in a substance, as you recall from lesson 1-3 (http://www.fordhamprep.org/gcurran/sho/sho/lessons/lesson13.htm). It makes sense that a more massive sample will have more thermal energy than a smaller sample, if all other factors are equal. Imagine the difference in total energy between a spoonful of boiling water and a vat of boiling water.
3) Specific Heat Capacity - Each material is able to "hold" a certain amount of thermal energy at a given temperature, due to what we call its specific heat. Think of the wide range of temperatures that your feet encounter during a day at the beach. The water may seem cold while the sand feels quite warm. The wood on the boardwalk may feel comfortable, but the blacktop in the parking lot is burning hot. Things will heat up at different rates, due, in part, to their different specific heat values.
So, as you see, temperature is one of the factors that affects the thermal energy of a substance. What is heat? Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a hotter to a colder object. What we think of as "cold" is really the absence of heat. An object with at a higher temperature can release more heat than the same object at a lower temperature, but temperature is only one of the factors that affect the amount of heat an object can transfer.
The factors that affect the amount of heat are the same as the factors that affect thermal energy, for reasons that should now be clear to you. Thermal energy is only measurable as heat, during heat transfer. The amount of heat transferred can be found according to the following formula:
amount of heat transferred = mass x change in temperature x specific heat
It is important to note that the symbols that are used for the formula will vary from textbook to textbook, but the values that they represent never change. One way to write the heat transfer formula is shown below:
q = m(DT)Cp
Where q = heat transferred, DT = the change in temperature and Cp = the specific heat.
This formula will be used in a later lesson, but you should begin to understand the concept now. Going back to our earlier example, picture a spoonful of 100.0 oC water and a vat filled with water, also at 100.0 oC. Which would you rather have spilled on you? The water in the vat can transfer much more heat, despite the fact that its temperature is no higher that the water in the spoon. This should help you understand that heat and temperature are not the same thing at all.

[~enigma~]

Nope.

It is a well known fact that the fires in those buildings did not reach anything near 1000C. This has already been established. It has? By whom? Are you being so willfully ignorant to claim that an office fire can't ever reach or exceed 1000 C?We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. Yes we all heard about Aquaman and his failure in court. There was a song written about him by a band called Green Day. Maybe you are familiar with the song, it was called American Idiot...

[Alferd_Packer]

Hey Papasmurf,

Why do refrence books always list chemical reaction data (like combustion) as being at "STP?"

[volatile]

Thanks, Ron.

PapaSmurf - point 2 is the important one in understanding where you're going wrong, should you need that pointing out to you.

ETA: Your own video actually explains that very fact to you. 1,000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon of jet fuel. You understand that quite well; I'm sure. You wouldn't go putting 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue, would you?

[~enigma~]

Hey Papasmurf,

Why do refrence books always list chemical reaction data (like combustion) as being at "STP?"
In this case I thought the acronym meant Stops Truther's Pointlessness

[papasmurf]

No. The energy released is an intrinsic property for a given combustion reaction. The temperature released is dependent on other factors.

under your interpetation, the temperature of a flame in a combustion reaction would be the same no matter what the initial conditions are. In other words, you are stating that the temperature would be the same no matter what the initial temperature of the reactants were.

Do you honestly that twisting people's words and misrepresenting them is going to work on me?

I was very clear and concise in what i said.

The energy released from a combustion reaction is intrinsic? Really?

Energy is NEVER an intrinsic property. Temperature IS an intrinsic property.

" the temperature of a flame in a combustion reaction would be the same no matter what the initial conditions are."

Absolutely the farthest thing from what i said.

I said given a certain set of conditions, the temperature of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel.

"In other words, you are stating that the temperature would be the same no matter what the initial temperature of the reactants were."

Nope. Try again. Same as above. Besides the fact that the initial temperature of the reactants is negligible and irrelevant to the reaction temperature (note that if you put frozen wood and warm wood into a fire, they will both begin to combust at the same temperature, so what they started out with doesn't matter), besides that, that has nothing to do with what i said.

The conditions i refer to are those relevant to determining the temperature of a fire including air/fuel ratio, oxygen levels, circulation, etc...

[Minadin]

<snip>

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.

Unbelievable. Kevin Ryan is a known fraud and liar who has been exposed many, many times on this very forum. I suspect that he's also an idiot, based on some of the things he has pulled (or attempted), but he's certainly a charlatan. That you conspiracy drones still hold him in such high regard is simply not fathomable to me at all.

Here's a simple cursory search of topics where his lying tendancies come up, including some information you could use to educate yourself about how "steel" is tested by companies such as UL:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3864671#post3864671

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3819769&highlight=kevin+ryan#post3819769

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3632667#post3632667

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100423 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100423)

Really there are too many to list them all:

JREF Forum on Kevin Ryan (http://www.google.com/custom?q=kevin+ryan+liar&sa=Google+Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)

Your hero is a fraud.

[papasmurf]

Thanks, Ron.

PapaSmurf - point 2 is the important one in understanding where you're going wrong, should you need that pointing out to you.

ETA: Your own video actually explains that very fact to you. 1,000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon of jet fuel. You understand that quite well; I'm sure. You wouldn't go putting 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue, would you?

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!

[WildCat]

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed!
You're still claiming the only thing that burned at the WTC was jet fuel? :jaw-dropp

[volatile]

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!

You're doing an engineering degree, right? You do understand that materials do not magically retain their full strength until the instant they melt, right?

This is why the difference between 1 gallon of fuel and 1,000 gallons of fuel is important. Time and intensity, as already pointed out to you, are the factors you're ignoring. Think about what would happen to your barbecue if you put 1,000 gallons of fuel in it and lit a match...

[papasmurf]

Unbelievable. Kevin Ryan is a known fraud and liar who has been exposed many, many times on this very forum. I suspect that he's also an idiot, based on some of the things he has pulled (or attempted), but he's certainly a charlatan. That you conspiracy drones still hold him in such high regard is simply not fathomable to me at all.

Here's a simple cursory search of topics where his lying tendancies come up, including some information you could use to educate yourself about how "steel" is tested by companies such as UL:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3864671#post3864671

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3819769&highlight=kevin+ryan#post3819769

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3632667#post3632667

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100423 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100423)

Really there are too many to list them all:

JREF Forum on Kevin Ryan (http://www.google.com/custom?q=kevin+ryan+liar&sa=Google+Search&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)

Your hero is a fraud.

Poltical attacks and criticisms are not what i am after. I'm not going to dig through all those loser posts to find the scientific information that i am after. I want to see what is wrong with what he wrote. I don't want to discuss kevin ryan, i want to discuss the paper he wrote. Thanks anyway.

[papasmurf]

You're doing an engineering degree, right? You do understand that materials do not magically retain their full strength until the instant they melt, right?

This is why the difference between 1 gallon of fuel and 1,000 gallons of fuel is important. Time and intensity, as already pointed out to you, are the factors you're ignoring. Think about what would happen to your barbecue if you put 1,000 gallons of fuel in it and lit a match...


The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.

This is really really simple science people, i don't know why we are still arguing about this. Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.

[JimBenArm]

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!
>bolding mine<
Really? Is there some magical property of a building being fire-coded that prevents burning items from going above a certain temperature? Do the temperature fairies intervene to prevent the chemical reactions from proceeding at their normal rates? Or is it just that you fail to understand combustion and thermodynamics?
I know where I'm placing my money...

[volatile]

The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.


You've had this explained already. Jeez.

"In the Cardington Tests above, several of the beams surpassed 1000 C in around 45 minutes. Just from wood.

Jet fuel contains 135,000 BTU's per gallon. That's about 20,000 per pound.
Wood containing no moisture contains around 8,600 BTU's per pound.

So you claim that it would 'take hours' to heat steel to 1000 C with jet fuel, when it takes less than 45 minutes using a fuel with less than half the energy content."

What makes you think that a) the WTC fires couldn't have reached 1000 degrees C? and b) that the intensity and duration of the WTC fires were not sufficient to damage steel such that collapse initiation occurred?

In short - what is your alternative hypothesis?

[AZCat]

The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.

This is really really simple science people, i don't know why we are still arguing about this. Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.

We are arguing about it because you seem oblivious to the fact that the surroundings partially determine the flame and gas temperatures in the space, and that there is such a thing as time-dependency.

How much thermo/heat transfer did you have in school, exactly?

[Newtons Bit]

1000C heat is a red-herring. The building collapsed when one wall(ish) of columns reached 600C.

[Myriad]

I said given a certain set of conditions, the temperature of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel.


What you didn't say is that the temperature attained by the surroundings as a result of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel. Because that would be false, right?

Your frozen wood ignites at the same temperature as warm wood, but heats the room less, because some of the heat that would otherwise raise the temperature of the surroundings warms the remaining unburned fuel instead.

In real fires, especially structure fires, heat accumulates over time, raising the temperature. The amount and type of the fuel is one of many important factors in how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. The "reaction temperature" as you call it is in no way a limit on how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. When oxygen is limited, fuel that's not burning yet gets pre-heated by the heat released by fuel that's already burning, and its combustion temperature is therefore higher when it eventually does burn. There is no inherent limit to this process.

Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[AZCat]

<snip>
Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Is this an open or closed system? Do I have to worry about pump cavitation?

[volatile]

Well, that's a hell of a lot clearer than my BBQ analogy. Cheers for that, Myriad (not that I suspect it will do much good).

[beachnut]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I think we should all read it, then come on here and smear it and make fun of it.

It will be a jolly good time.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

1. He actually thinks the molten material flowing from the southeast corner of wtc2 could be molten iron from a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum mixed with bubble gum!


2. He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

3. He thinks the destruction of the core collumns into hundreds of pieces is unaccounted for! Those fires were HUGE!

4. He thinks there is molten metal in the basements of all three buildings! NIST didn't find any!


What is the matter with this guy?

I want to tear this guy to shreds; he is truther trash. Somebody give me something to read that totally destroys this paper!


Thanks for showing me the light JREF!

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!
I am glad you finally let your engineering skills overcome your bias on 9/11 dumb ideas. Jones is the personification of 9/11 dumb ideas.

Yes that paper is junk, and an engineering student should be able to point out the failures of Jones. Jones made up his first cycle of thermite in 2005, 4 years after 9/11. He has to change his story when he found out thermite did not go boom and destroy stuff as he liked. I wonder why he stands by a story that would have massive amounts of evidence to figure out. So clearly is he debunked, only a special kind of truth movement follower find his work viable. Lucky for you, you are studying to be an Engineer, and would not fall for fraud only those as dumb neoNAZIs would fall for.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesLie.jpg



This is multiple floors smashed together due to a 100 TONS of TNT gravitation potential energy release Jones failed to understand so he makes up lies.

Jones is a liar and a fraud. He has no evidence and made up thermite because idiots who don't understand what thermite is, will follow him due to lack of knowledge and pure stupidity. That photo is a few floors with steel pans and light weight concrete smashed together.

How can Jones make up such lies? Who would believe such a stupid lie? If you had the ability, you would debunk Jones yourself, but you must be unable to marshal your good grade engineering efforts to combat pure ignorance on 9/11. What a waste of an engineering slot.

[ktesibios]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters

[Myriad]

Is this an open or closed system? Do I have to worry about pump cavitation?


Whichever you like, no (assume the pump avoids sweets and flosses regularly), and if you're asking these questions you're probably thinking of solutions way more sophisticated than what I have in mind. :)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[~enigma~]

Poltical attacks and criticisms are not what i am after. I'm not going to dig through all those loser posts to find the scientific information that i am after. I want to see what is wrong with what he wrote. I don't want to discuss kevin ryan, i want to discuss the paper he wrote. Thanks anyway.
Aquaman is an idiot. Whatever he wrote or says is being dismissed by me (as the court did) with extreme prejudice.

[~enigma~]

Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.
The only points Steven Jones has are covered by his rapidly thinning hair.

[Dave_46]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters

My bolding. Another thing to remember is that due to the thermal inertia of the temperature sensors the gas temperature will peak at a temperature above that recorded.

And, setting stuff on fire for sciemce is great fun. I was (peripherally) involved in at least one of the Cardington tests.

Dave

[~enigma~]

Hey little boy blue (papasmurf), this was a joint effort of Aquaman and Steven Jones. Watch and you might learn what idiots they are.

CGIzDrlJsGg

[beachnut]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda! No you are...

Just like you saying you will never be back, or for a long time, you have picked Jones; he lies too.

You have picked a liar to represent your views on 9/11, whether out of ignorance or disrespect.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/jonesfrau1.jpg
But Jones is a big liar as he shows clean up cuts on steel columns as proof or implications of his nut bat crazy thermite ideas.

[papasmurf]

What you didn't say is that the temperature attained by the surroundings as a result of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel. Because that would be false, right?

Your frozen wood ignites at the same temperature as warm wood, but heats the room less, because some of the heat that would otherwise raise the temperature of the surroundings warms the remaining unburned fuel instead.

In real fires, especially structure fires, heat accumulates over time, raising the temperature. The amount and type of the fuel is one of many important factors in how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. The "reaction temperature" as you call it is in no way a limit on how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. When oxygen is limited, fuel that's not burning yet gets pre-heated by the heat released by fuel that's already burning, and its combustion temperature is therefore higher when it eventually does burn. There is no inherent limit to this process.

Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, yes ... this is very good Myriad. When something burns and releases heat into the building, the building temperature will raise over time.

However, my point still stands that the TEMPERATURE would never exceed the maximum temperature of what is burning... I don't know why we are still arguing over this. The issue here should be whether or not the fire in the building could have exceeded 1000 C. It is common knowledge that office fires (i know it was not just jet fuel, it is you people who claim the jet fuel is significant) rarely burn over 600 C, and hardly ever reach 800C.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the pump analogy...

[papasmurf]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters


I understand that all testing of actual wtc models and trusses failed to show how fire could have caused them to collapse. None of the tests showed failing truses or collumns as they had hoped.

[WildCat]

However, my point still stands that the TEMPERATURE would never exceed the maximum temperature of what is burning...
How on earth did the Romans make iron?

I don't know why we are still arguing over this. The issue here should be whether or not the fire in the building could have exceeded 1000 C. It is common knowledge that office fires (i know it was not just jet fuel, it is you people who claim the jet fuel is significant) rarely burn over 600 C, and hardly ever reach 800C.
By claiming it is common knowledge you think you don't have to source this ridiculous claim? Because it's been shown to you, using real-world fires and actual measurements, that they do.

If you keep this up one would get the impression you're a liar.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the pump analogy...
I'm not surprised.

[papasmurf]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

[papasmurf]

How on earth did the Romans make iron?


By claiming it is common knowledge you think you don't have to source this ridiculous claim? Because it's been shown to you, using real-world fires and actual measurements, that they do.

If you keep this up one would get the impression you're a liar.


I'm not surprised.

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!


Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

[beachnut]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?
Jones implication of thermite are a lie. Those were cuts made during clean up and search and rescue. Sorry, you missed the photos of them making cuts;

You sure did not try very hard. Your ignorance on 9/11 is showing again.

Being immune to the truth is a problem of most 9/11 truth movement members. Lack of knowledge and real shoddy research. Like yours.
With your high grades in an Engineering program, it seems ashamed to waste and education on someone unable to apply it.

With your support of clean up cuts made after 9/11, you have failed to gain knowledge, and support Jones who made up thermite in September 2005. You are late over 6 years, Jones was only 4 years late. It took less time to get a Pulitzer Prize for Watergate. So your ability to research and get anything right about 9/11 is around zero.
Hurry back, you last long vacation was much too long, as it was expected to last forever.

[WildCat]

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!

Remember the link you hand-waved away? http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

If you continue to ignore it I will call you out as a liar every time I see you post. Yes papasmurf, office and residential fires can and do commonly get that hot.


Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
Perhaps you've never seen a picture of the Madrid tower prior to the fire? It had steel sections, which completely collapsed. Only the concrete columns remained standing.

Now, will you stop lying about how hot office fires commonly get?

[scissorhands]

Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

Heres one example of why its ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.



Looks like they are using a new fangled invention called a "crane", or a "cherrypicker"?
Also called, more properly, a "hydraulic access platform".

[WildCat]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?
Nope.

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.
What does the caption of this pic (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2007/08/16/nyregion/20070817_BANK_SLIDESHOW_11.html) say?

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.
Maybe a youtube video will help? Especially pay attention starting at the 1:30 mark.

FfgSr2eBXls

Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?
Because it's been proven beyond any doubt it was done by workers during the cleanup.

Oh, and there's also the little problem that thermite cannot make such a cut, not can explosives. Do I need to refer you to the hilarious truthburn experiment?

[~enigma~]

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!


Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
Guess this is impossible for a hydrocarbon fire, right papasmurf? BTW, when are you going to talk to a firefighter before making yourself look sillier than you already do?

Drsgs6-3Qlg

ETA - papasmurf seems oddly silent?

[Newtons Bit]

Looks like they are using a new fangled invention called a "crane"?

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

[Architect]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

Damn! Beaten to it.

Also called, more properly, a hydraulic access platform. Come in a range of handy sizes at very reasonable rates. Really, how can you Truthers not know this basic stuff?

[WildCat]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".
So after truthers mine their quotes they pile them up and select the good ones with the cherry picker?

[Hokulele]

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind.


Building materials (and fire ratings) are designed based on Time/Temperature curves. Not temperature alone.

[scissorhands]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

Yes, though dont confuse him anymore than necessary, its a crane basically, with a working platform.

ETA. Ive added a full and unambiguous description of the machine portrayed, just in case there was any confusion.

[pomeroo]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?


There is no thermite dripping down. No thermite/thermate was used at the WTC complex.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind.


Fireproofing. It's not the messiah, however. It's just there to slow the process down long enough for the fires to be put out before Really Bad Things™ happen.

[~enigma~]

When any truther starts spouting nonsense about the fires. Just post the video I did. Generally shuts them right up as they have no legs left to stand on with their stupidity that hydrocarbon fires can't damage steel. That was with a few guys. Any idea what a 15 story chunk of office building would have done to that steel even if it was as thick as those in the WTC?

[Alferd_Packer]

Energy is NEVER an intrinsic property. Temperature IS an intrinsic property.



You seem to be confusing the properties of matter with those of a chemical reaction.

As I said, the heat of combustion for a given reaction is by definition an intensive property.

The temperature of a given object is also an intensive property, but the temperature released by a given combustion reaction is not. If you have two separate combustion reactions with all things being equal but with different starting temperatures of the reactants, then you will get two separate product temperatures.

[Alferd_Packer]

Oh and BTW, papasmurf, I started a thread just for you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=120254

[AZCat]

Fireproofing. It's not the messiah, however. It's just there to slow the process down long enough for the fires to be put out before Really Bad Things™ happen.

That's why new buildings generally have fire sprinkler systems. The WTC towers were retrofitted with sprinkler systems as a consequence of the 1975 fire which, if it had run unchecked, would have been catastrophic.

[AZCat]

Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

[JimBenArm]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?
I don't find them at all noteworthy. But then, I've actually seen cutting torches used, and have seen slag runoff exactly like that. It helps to have real-world experience, instead of relying on the lies told to you by idiots who know nothing.

[Dog Town]

This is multiple floors smashed together due to a 100 TONS of TNT gravitation potential energy release Jones failed to understand so he makes up lies.

And... just to show Jonesy's penchant, for manipulating photos, here's another pic of same. Hmmm... Thermi(a)te river, glowing flashlight photo?:D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_109234897a826b7ef4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13332)

[papasmurf]

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!


As for the person who is saying heat of combustion is intensive, this is only the case when giving the value in terms of kJ/kg. Notice that to determine the actual energy given by the reaction, you need to know the mass, so the energy is extensive. The more relevant value in our case is the total energy, not the energy per mass, so the property we are concerned with is the extensive energy value.

Anyways I would like to take your word for it that the collumn was cut, but i need more evidence that they were doing those things during search and rescue, and the types of cuts they were doing. It would make sense that we were cutting metal to get to lower sections buried under the rubble, but can you come up with a good reason for cutting a tall vertical collumn that is standing above the rubble? Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.

[AZCat]

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!

Of course you did. It's still a stupid argument.

[~enigma~]

Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.
Not even worth addressing anything else you said but why would a worker cut a column to any size other than what the trucks could handle? And Asia? Did you ever hear of Fresh Kills or are you parroting CT baloney again?

[bynmdsue]

1) Perhaps the column was cut before rubble was cleared away from it.

2)They drove the steel to Asia?

[WildCat]

Anyways I would like to take your word for it that the collumn was cut, but i need more evidence that they were doing those things during search and rescue, and the types of cuts they were doing.
Did you miss this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3918271#post3918271)?

It would make sense that we were cutting metal to get to lower sections buried under the rubble, but can you come up with a good reason for cutting a tall vertical collumn that is standing above the rubble?
Yeah, people are generally uncomfortable with tons of unstable metal hanging over their heads while heavy equipment is being moved around.


Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.
Looks like you're back to thinking the columns came in 1300 foot sections again? :rolleyes:

And do you accept that normal office fires can attain temps of 1000C? I need to know whether you intend to lie for the duration of your time here.

[bynmdsue]

Oh Yeah...

3) Wasn't the steel originally in 30 Ft. lengths?

[Mancman]

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!

Based on your research, how big is the population?

[papasmurf]

Based on your research, how big is the population?

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.

The photo was brought in here by someone else, but since neither side can show proof of what happened to it, it shouldn't be discussed any further.

[beachnut]

How many more goalpost moves are there?

papasmurf has presented Jones, the biggest failure, the nicest guy in 9/11 truth. You will know your engineering education has taken a hold when you can research and understand Jones made up thermite. Until then, your education is a failure in helping you to understand 9/11.

So far you have been plastered on this one thread many ways, and now you move the goal posts so you can lose on a bigger field?

[AZCat]

This is boring and incredibly stupid.
Yes, that is why we called you on it.

I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.
I don't think that word meas what you think it means.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.
Which computer simulation? You are aware that the NIST performed several different simulations as part of the WTC Tower collapse investigations? Please reference the specific simulation you are criticizing.

[~enigma~]

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.

The photo was brought in here by someone else, but since neither side can show proof of what happened to it, it shouldn't be discussed any further.
Typical truther hand wave to dismiss anything that proves their baloney wrong.

[beachnut]

And... just to show Jonesy's penchant, for manipulating photos, here's another pic of same. Hmmm... Thermi(a)te river, glowing flashlight photo?:D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_109234897a826b7ef4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13332)
No thermite in that piece of many floors with papers still in it. That alone, that one photo makes Jones work total junk, stupid, pure fantasy, crap, etc. I find it hard how a person as nice as Jones can spew so many lies.

[WildCat]

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.
This is a lie. The first building shown in your video was the Madrid Windsor. The only thing left standing after the fire was the concrete (not steel, it was a reinforced conrete structure). the steel portions failed completely.

I didn't bother watching more after encountering this lie.

Any comment on this papasmurf?

FfgSr2eBXls

[beachnut]

Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
You show a building with a concrete core, which is why it did not fall! But the building was TOTALED BY FIRE. LOL I thought it was funny you show most the top of the building "exploding" from the fire and falling to the ground this is funny. Another thing is the fire looks 1000 times more impressive at night!

Then you make a statement about building being intake, and you use this stupid comparison. A concrete core to a non-concrete core, and the one with out fell, just like the steel only frame you show falling off the building.

BTW, the Madrid building is not around any more, it was totaled by FIRE! LOL

Where are you other videos? Can you repeat your list of intact buildings, Madrid is out. Can you please find a building with no fire systems working and no firefighting efforts. So far you have shown the Madrid building which was fought all night with water being sprayed on the building which kept the lower parts from falling off! So get your act together and try again! Madrid is a perfect example why a concrete core can keep a building from collapsing even when it is too weak to use any more. Sorry, you are busted on this one.

[Minadin]

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

Italicized boldings by me -

It's weird that people who have actual knowledge of these things tend to use the same definitions -

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3846827#post3846827

Whereas conspiracy theorist definitions seem to vary greatly from post to post, or depending on what point they are trying to make.

[AZCat]

Italicized boldings by me -

It's weird that people who have actual knowledge of these things tend to use the same definitions -

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3846827#post3846827

Whereas conspiracy theorist definitions seem to vary greatly from post to post, or depending on what point they are trying to make.

Yes, very weird. Clearly this must be evidence of the NWO thought manipulation program at work. After all, those building design professionals who don't agree with the "truth movement" are shills anyway.

[Minadin]

Poltical attacks and criticisms are not what i am after. I'm not going to dig through all those loser posts to find the scientific information that i am after. I want to see what is wrong with what he wrote. I don't want to discuss kevin ryan, i want to discuss the paper he wrote. Thanks anyway.

So, in the face of a giant, murderous conspiracy, you're only willing to do that which is easy. Gotcha. To each his own.

[papasmurf]

So, in the face of a giant, murderous conspiracy, you're only willing to do that which is easy. Gotcha. To each his own.

Has nothing to do with being easy. This is the most difficult thing in the world to cope with. I just don't want to waste my time digging through hundreds of idiotic posts by people like pomeroo to find a sentence or two that actually talks about what is being said in these papers.

So to get back on track, i just pulled a random segment from the paper of Steven E. Jones, and i would like to know what is wrong with the analysis.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."

[beachnut]

Has nothing to do with being easy. This is the most difficult thing in the world to cope with. I just don't want to waste my time digging through hundreds of idiotic posts by people like pomeroo to find a sentence or two that actually talks about what is being said in these papers.

So to get back on track, i just pulled a random segment from the paper of Steven E. Jones, and i would like to know what is wrong with the analysis.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."
Jones article is all junk. His thermite is a fantasy he made up. You can't produce one thing to support his paper. You have failed to provide evidence to support your hero, who made up thermite just for gullible people like you.

That is the truth about Jones and if you ever digest what you have learned in college and gain the ability to apply it in an unbiased manner, you too will see Jones as a fraud on 9/11! You will be upset you acted like a person who believes lies and false information.

So far you have been shown how Jones has lied but you ignored it all. Why? Because you are unable to read, or don't read because you don't like the fact you believe lies?

Please acknowledge the false information all ready proven to you!

The cuts on the steel columns, a Jones lie.
The floors smashed together, a Jones lie.
Thermite, a Jones lie.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."
Darn, thermite is done in minutes, seconds not days and weeks. DEBUNKED Anytime Jones says thermite it is a lie. Try to get this one right next time.

[Jonnyclueless]

Has nothing to do with being easy. This is the most difficult thing in the world to cope with. I just don't want to waste my time digging through hundreds of idiotic posts by people like pomeroo to find a sentence or two that actually talks about what is being said in these papers.


Yet your 9/11 conspiracy cults have no problem going to such trouble just to quote mine and take things out o context...

[papasmurf]

Jones article is all junk. His thermite is a fantasy he made up. You can't produce one thing to support his paper. You have failed to provide evidence to support your hero, who made up thermite just for gullible people like you.

That is the truth about Jones and if you ever digest what you have learned in college and gain the ability to apply it in an unbiased manner, you too will see Jones as a fraud on 9/11! You will be upset you acted like a person who believes lies and false information.

So far you have been shown how Jones has lied but you ignored it all. Why? Because you are unable to read, or don't read because you don't like the fact you believe lies?

Please acknowledge the false information all ready proven to you!

The cuts on the steel columns, a Jones lie.
The floors smashed together, a Jones lie.
Thermite, a Jones lie.

Darn, thermite is done in minutes, seconds not days and weeks. DEBUNKED Anytime Jones says thermite it is a lie. Try to get this one right next time.


Beachnut, are you being serious?

Jones clearly says the basements act like insulating ovens that contain the massive amounts of heat released by the thermite. This is an enormous amount of energy that can be contained for weeks due to the massive amounts of molten metal and the huge heat capacity and the fact that is underground. Everyone knows that the thermite reaction only lasts minutes.

Why do you do this? Please explain to me why anyone should take your word for it when you make insanely idiotic claims like these. These ideas are on par with how a 7th grader would think about the situation.

[papasmurf]

You haven't showed me he lied in the least bit. This is a mere assertion and is not proven.

He claims the office fires did not reach 1000C, as does NIST. You say they were just because one test with massive amounts of wood was able to show that is possible for an office fire to get to 1000C. This is not proof of any lies.

The real issue here is that steel was melted. Everyone can agree that the fire did not reach temperatures to melt steel, even if we did believe you that the fires reached 1000C.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, are you being serious?

Jones clearly says the basements act like insulating ovens that contain the massive amounts of heat released by the thermite. This is an enormous amount of energy that can be contained for weeks due to the massive amounts of molten metal and the huge heat capacity and the fact that is underground. Everyone knows that the thermite reaction only lasts minutes.

Why do you do this? Please explain to me why anyone should take your word for it when you make insanely idiotic claims like these. These ideas are on par with how a 7th grader would think about the situation.
So please tell me the quantity of thermite to do this?

BTW, ignore the 315 TONS of TNT heat energy injected into each tower in the form of jet fuel. Jones does, so can you.

BTW, what is the equal heat energy of the entire contents of WTC burning in pounds or TONS of TNT. do you have a clue?

Go right ahead and take the thermite lie, the fantasy of Jones and quantify the amounts! Try, take an engineering try!

So far Jones lies have been proven, you have ignored it. Why? Do you lack the ability to read and comprehend? You got zero evidence, just like Jones.

You haven't showed me he lied in the least bit. This is a mere assertion and is not proven.
The column cut was done after 9/11. So the thermite implication is a lie, or what do you call it? Proven wrong before you even decided to join and spew the lies yourself.
You haven't showed me he lied in the least bit. This is a mere assertion and is not proven.
The photo he says is melted WTC thermite junk, is floors smashed together due to the gravity collapse. Do you think a gravity collapse exceeding 100 TONS of TNT energy can do that? Go ahead and prove it wrong.

[Dave_46]

You haven't showed me he lied in the least bit. This is a mere assertion and is not proven.

He claims the office fires did not reach 1000C, as does NIST. You say they were just because one test with massive amounts of wood was able to show that is possible for an office fire to get to 1000C. This is not proof of any lies.

The real issue here is that steel was melted. Everyone can agree that the fire did not reach temperatures to melt steel, even if we did believe you that the fires reached 1000C.

My bolding.

More than one test was performed as part of the programme.

"Massive amounts of wood"? There was a lot less fuel in even the biggest of the Cardington fires than in the WTC.

[kimota]

Since I am an infrequent visitor to this board, please forgive me if the following has already been addressed.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/jonesfrau1.jpg


I have a couple of questions about these pictures and since they are used in Jones' report, it's relevant to the OP.

For the moment, I'm going to assume that Jones' scenario is correct and from that, I will make the following assumptions:
1) These are load bearing columns, since they were targeted for cutting during the building's collapse. And as load bearing columns go, they would experience great amounts of compressive force.
2) A "thermite cutter charge" gets hot enough to liquefy the steel along the lines of where the cutter charge is placed, over 2500° C.
3) The steel surrounding the cutter charge contact area would also be heated, but to a decreasing degree the further away it is from the cutter charge. Significantly heated, but not to the melting point.

My questions are: would the support columns, experiencing large compressive force during the melt-through, look so relatively intact? Wouldn't they distort before failure? If the cutter charge managed sever it without distorting, wouldn't the remaining section of the column likely experience impacts from the debris falling among it and in its heated, softened state, show evidence of those impacts?

Maybe if Dr. Jones had recreated the effects of thermite on a large steel column with a compressive force comparable to supporting a skyscraper, rather than melting a steel coffee cup, we might have a better idea if that picture is an accurate evidence of what he proposes.

[pomeroo]

Has nothing to do with being easy. This is the most difficult thing in the world to cope with. I just don't want to waste my time digging through hundreds of idiotic posts by people like pomeroo to find a sentence or two that actually talks about what is being said in these papers.

So to get back on track, i just pulled a random segment from the paper of Steven E. Jones, and i would like to know what is wrong with the analysis.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."


Yes, we get the idea that pointing out that no thermite/thermate was used anywhere in the WTC complex is inconvenient to your fantasy. You must understand, however, that the fact that a person is much smarter, more honest, and better informed than you doesn't make him "idiotic."

You have been exposed.

[pomeroo]

Beachnut, are you being serious?

Jones clearly says the basements act like insulating ovens that contain the massive amounts of heat released by the thermite. This is an enormous amount of energy that can be contained for weeks due to the massive amounts of molten metal and the huge heat capacity and the fact that is underground. Everyone knows that the thermite reaction only lasts minutes.

Why do you do this? Please explain to me why anyone should take your word for it when you make insanely idiotic claims like these. These ideas are on par with how a 7th grader would think about the situation.



I routinely ask you ignorant liars what you know that the demolition professionals don't. For some reason, I NEVER get an answer.

[~enigma~]

The real issue here is that steel was melted.i thought the subject was Jones hilarious article and not any mythical molten steel. You didn't lie about the subject did you?

[DC]

I routinely ask you ignorant liars what you know that the demolition professionals don't. For some reason, I NEVER get an answer.

here you go you irgnorant liar,
we dont have to get big contracts in the USA.........

[Newtons Bit]

Has nothing to do with being easy. This is the most difficult thing in the world to cope with. I just don't want to waste my time digging through hundreds of idiotic posts by people like pomeroo to find a sentence or two that actually talks about what is being said in these papers.

So to get back on track, i just pulled a random segment from the paper of Steven E. Jones, and i would like to know what is wrong with the analysis.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high
temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."

Not completely off the topic, but isn't one of the common "Truther" mantras to state that the lattice of steel framing would instantly wick away heat from the fire area due to thermal conductivity? Jones seems to be contradicting that directly.

On the topic, I fail to see how this shows that thermite is a reasonable conclusion to draw. An office fire, like the one that was documented by thousands of photographs and dozens of video recordings, would heat the metal up and if kept in a "fairly-well insulated underground location" would retain heat in the same way that Jones is proposing that thermite would do. There is documented evidence of a fire that was hot enough to melt the aluminum off the side of the towers. There is no such documented evidence that thermite reactions ever took place.

[Disbelief]

here you go you irgnorant liar,
we dont have to get big contracts in the USA.........

Would YOU cover up murder for further work? If not, why would you routinely accuse others of doing so?

[DC]

Would YOU cover up murder for further work? If not, why would you routinely accuse others of doing so?

welcome to real life, its done every day.........

[WildCat]

Since I am an infrequent visitor to this board, please forgive me if the following has already been addressed.
Yes, it has.
For the moment, I'm going to assume that Jones' scenario is correct and from that, I will make the following assumptions:
That's a mighty long limb you're walking out on!

1) These are load bearing columns, since they were targeted for cutting during the building's collapse. And as load bearing columns go, they would experience great amounts of compressive force.
They are load-bearing columns, that's the one of the few things Jones got right.

2) A "thermite cutter charge" gets hot enough to liquefy the steel along the lines of where the cutter charge is placed, over 2500° C.
There's no such thing as a "thermite cutter charge" capable of making those cuts.

Maybe if Dr. Jones had recreated the effects of thermite on a large steel column with a compressive force comparable to supporting a skyscraper, rather than melting a steel coffee cup, we might have a better idea if that picture is an accurate evidence of what he proposes.
There's a simple reason neither Jones nor anyone else in the "truth" movement has done this - it cannot be done.

Jones made up thermite to explain the lack of audio demo charges, but he forgot that thermite cannot cut across a column. It can only cut down.

And finally, the video truthers pretend they don't see:
FfgSr2eBXls

[Disbelief]

welcome to real life, its done every day.........

Really? People cover up mass murder for a paycheck?

You didn't answer the question though, would YOU cover up mass murder for further work?

[WildCat]

:words:
Stop ignoring the video I posted 3 times in this thread showing cleanup workers cutting the columns you claim was done by thermite.

You said you'd change your mind if shown this evidence, it appears you were lying again.

Why should anyone here bother with you if you ignore facts inconvenient to your fantasy and lie when it suits you?

[~enigma~]

welcome to real life, its done every day.........
Ah...another insight into the mind if a truther. The consfearacy is made in their minds to cover for their own inadequacies. Now it all makes sense...

[Dave Rogers]

So to get back on track, i just pulled a random segment from the paper of Steven E. Jones, and i would like to know what is wrong with the analysis.

"The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F)."

Apart from the absence of any significant degree of analysis, the following is wrong with it:

Jones is making an assumption that the metal in question was initially heated to a very high temperature, then cooled slowly over six weeks to reddish-orange heat. There is, however, overwhelming evidence cited elsewhere, including in Jones's own publications, that there were fires burning in the rubble pile for at least six weeks that were capable of sustaining metal at reddish-orange heat. Therefore, the reddish-orange heat of the metal is expected from the presence of the known fires. Any conclusions that Jones attempts to draw from the heat of the rubble that ignore the presence of these fires are necessarily invalid. As usual, Jones is cherry-picking his own evidence, and deliberately ignoring evidence he is well aware of and has presented as evidence for his hypothesis elsewhere, because in this instance it doesn't support his hypothesis. This is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple.

Dave

[DC]

Really? People cover up mass murder for a paycheck?

You didn't answer the question though, would YOU cover up mass murder for further work?

i personaly not, but thousands of humans do it day in day out.
ijust cause i would not do it, does not mean others would not do it also.

[~enigma~]

i personaly not, but thousands of humans do it day in day out.
Really...so with the population of the world at 6 billion and thousands covering up for mass murder daily, how long till the earth is a rock as barren as your psyche?

[papasmurf]

i thought the subject was Jones hilarious article and not any mythical molten steel. You didn't lie about the subject did you?

I also said i don't want people who didn't read the article to open their big mouths ;)


Molten steel is a huge portion of the article in question.

[~enigma~]

I also said i don't want people who didn't read the article to open their big mouths ;)


Molten steel is a huge portion of the article in question.
Ok Mr. Big Mouth...was the molten steel identified first hand by a metallurgist and how was it tested or is Steven "jeebus in America" Jones pulling it out of his hieney again?

[WildCat]

papasmurf is still ignoring the video I posted 3 pages ago.

[papasmurf]

Stop ignoring the video I posted 3 times in this thread showing cleanup workers cutting the columns you claim was done by thermite.

You said you'd change your mind if shown this evidence, it appears you were lying again.

Why should anyone here bother with you if you ignore facts inconvenient to your fantasy and lie when it suits you?

I did watch it. I don't deny that collumns were cut in the clean up. I just am not sure that the ones in the picture were cut during cleanup. It seems like there is a lot less debris around in the video you gave and that they cleared more of the material around the collumns before making the cuts.


People, let me say this. It is not my belief that thermite was used that drives me and most people in the truth movement. It is the questions, unexplained phenomena, and holes in the official story that have not been answered yet in any reasonable way that drives us.

I want to know what that molten metal came from first of all. You have failed to provide anything other than "no thermite" was used.

WEAK

[WildCat]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.
The above statement by papasmurf is a lie. He will never admit that the columns were cut by cleanup workers no matter how much evidence is shown to him.

Lying for the truth, eh papasmurf?

[~enigma~]

I want to know what that molten metal came from first of all.
Didn't you insist that it was steel just a few short posts above? Can you make up your mind and stop making fluctuations?

[WildCat]

I want to know what that molten metal came from first of all. You have failed to provide anything other than "no thermite" was used.
You have failed to admit that there is no known way for thermite to make those cuts.

You have failed to admit that thermite cannot burn for weeks or months.

You have failed to admit that ordinary office and house fires commonly reach temps high enough to melt aluminum and make steel glow red.

In other words, you are as dishonest as everyone else in the trruth movement, which is ironically based on lies.

WEAK
:rolleyes:

[papasmurf]

Ok Mr. Big Mouth...was the molten steel identified first hand by a metallurgist and how was it tested or is Steven "jeebus in America" Jones pulling it out of his hieney again?

You see Enigma. That is the problem indeed. There is a plethora of evidence showing that molten iron/steel was present. Video and photographic evidence. Satellite evidence. Previously molten iron that is collected. Some of it is even on display at memorial sites.

Now why hasn't this been thoroughly studied and explained?

Can you say "cover up" ?

I can. It's hard for most people with wool over their eyes to comprehend what we are dealing with here (everyone here).

[WildCat]

There is a plethora of evidence showing that molten iron/steel was present.
This is a lie.

Video and photographic evidence.
This is a lie.

Satellite evidence.
This is a lie.

Previously molten iron that is collected.
This is a lie.

Some of it is even on display at memorial sites.
This is a lie.

Now why hasn't this been thoroughly studied and explained?
Because 99% of people already know the "truth" movement is made up of liars, hacks, frauds, and snake oil salesmen. You've just provided more evidence of this.

I can. It's hard for most people with wool over their eyes to comprehend what we are dealing with here (everyone here).
I know exactly what I'm dealing with here - a liar who hasn't been correct about anything in his entire posting history here.

[papasmurf]

You have failed to admit that there is no known way for thermite to make those cuts.

You have failed to admit that thermite cannot burn for weeks or months.

You have failed to admit that ordinary office and house fires commonly reach temps high enough to melt aluminum and make steel glow red.

In other words, you are as dishonest as everyone else in the trruth movement, which is ironically based on lies.


:rolleyes:

"You have failed to admit that thermite cannot burn for weeks or months."

Lying just for the hell of it?

WEAK.


Please spare me your incredibly weak scientific understanding of anything. What you have just said PROVES the complete ineptness, lies, and ignorance of basic scientific principles of the debunking movement.

I have clearly said that "Everyone knows that thermite only burns for minutes". NO ONE CLAIMS that what we are witnessing is a burning thermite reaction. That is idiotic. I have already said that it is molten steel/iron resulting from a thermite reaction. As for enigma not understanding how it can be both, i will explain why they are not mutally exclusive. The product from the thermite reaction is iron. However the heat from this reaction is hot enough to melt steel. Hence why you could have significant quantities of both molten iron and steel. Simple as that.

But you insist i "have not admitted thermite cannot burn for weeks or months".

You sir, are a fraud. Please read the Jones article before trying to dismiss it as crap.

Jones has read the NIST report and debunked many of its claims. Yet you will not even do the courtesy of reading Jones's article.

[~enigma~]

You see Enigma. That is the problem indeed. There is a plethora of evidence showing that molten iron/steel was present. Video and photographic evidence. Satellite evidence. Previously molten iron that is collected. Some of it is even on display at memorial sites.

Now why hasn't this been thoroughly studied and explained?

Can you say "cover up" ?

I can. It's hard for most people with wool over their eyes to comprehend what we are dealing with here (everyone here).
No problem except one of your own making. Molten metal is more than understandable at ground zero and it is not surprising in the least. Molten steel has not been proven at all least of all not by Steven "Jeebus in America" Jones. Tell me, what metallurgist identified the molten steel and what tests did he do or is the molten steel being pulled out of Steven Jones Heiney?

[papasmurf]

No problem except one of your own making. Molten metal is more than understandable at ground zero and it is not surprising in the least. Molten steel has not been proven at all least of all not by Steven "Jeebus in America" Jones. Tell me, what metallurgist identified the molten steel and what tests did he do or is the molten steel being pulled out of Steven Jones Heiney?

Molten metal is the observation. Molten iron/steel is the conclusion based on the observations and analysis. Please spare me your complete ignorance of the matter at hand.

Read the article that this whole thread is about if you want more information on how it was identified.

I find it very strange that only one person here actually claimed to have read the article, while the rest of you just go on assertions of other people to dismiss the article. That just shows that you are not confident in your own thinking skills and are afraid of getting pulled over to the "dark side".


Reading is good for you!

READ IT.

[WildCat]

"You have failed to admit that thermite cannot burn for weeks or months."

Lying just for the hell of it?

WEAK.
You know of thermite burning for weeks and months? It's a main part of Jones' claim... maybe you could provide examples?

Or just admit you werew wrong. This is the last chance before you become a liar, again.

Please spare me your incredibly weak scientific understanding of anything. What you have just said PROVES the complete ineptness, lies, and ignorance of basic scientific principles of the debunking movement.
This from the guy who proposes tens of thousands of pounds of explosives in the middle of every floor of the WTC brought up by maintenance workers in carts? Who has failed to provide a single calculation despiote claiming to be an engineering student? Who has been caught lying multiple times?

I have clearly said that "Everyone knows that thermite only burns for minutes". NO ONE CLAIMS that what we are witnessing is a burning thermite reaction.
Steven Jones does in his new article (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).

That is idiotic.
So you admit that Steven Jones is an idiot, and you won't be relying on his nonsense any more?

I have already said that it is molten steel/iron resulting from a thermite reaction.
What molten steel? What molten iron?

As for enigma not understanding how it can be both, i will explain why they are not mutally exclusive. The product from the thermite reaction is iron. However the heat from this reaction is hot enough to melt steel. Hence why you could have significant quantities of both molten iron and steel. Simple as that.
And it doesn't cool down for weeks Mr. Engineering Student? :rolleyes:

But you insist i "have not admitted thermite cannot burn for weeks or months".

You sir, are a fraud. Please read the Jones article before trying to dismiss it as crap.
Steven Jones claims that it was indeed thermite burning for weeks and months in the pile:

6 Conclusion
The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic
nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much
of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC.
Thermite, discussed briefly above, is such a pyrotechnic
mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common
component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually
high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel,
iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by
physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites.
Additionally, the detection of 1,3-DPP at the
WTC supports this hypothesis. Finally, the spikes in VOCs,
detected by EPA on specific dates, are more readily
explained as a result of short-lived, violent fires caused by
energetic materials.
Do you admit Steven Jones is an idiot?

Jones has read the NIST report and debunked many of its claims.
This is a lie.

Yet you will not even do the courtesy of reading Jones's article.
Why should I read an article by a man who claims thermite was burning for weeks after the collapses?

[Dave Rogers]

Molten metal is the observation. Molten iron/steel is the conclusion based on the observations and analysis.

However, the conclusion does not follow from the observations and analysis, and Jones's article contains sufficient information to refute its own stated conclusion. Molten material coming from the towers pre-collapse was not hot enough to be molten iron or steel, and Jones's own data demonstrate this. Material claimed by Jones to be previously molten steel has been repeatedly identified by others to be compressed concrete which contains identifiable steel rebar, which has therefore not been melted. Satellite images indicate temperatures insufficiently high to melt structural steel. The photograph of a dripping steel element being pulled out of the rubble pile is nowhere near detailed enough to draw any useful conclusions.

In case you're not counting me as someone who's actually read Jones's article, please go to http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero
for some more detailed comments on this particular piece of intentional disinformation.

Dave

[papasmurf]

However, the conclusion does not follow from the observations and analysis, and Jones's article contains sufficient information to refute its own stated conclusion. Molten material coming from the towers pre-collapse was not hot enough to be molten iron or steel, and Jones's own data demonstrate this. Material claimed by Jones to be previously molten steel has been repeatedly identified by others to be compressed concrete which contains identifiable steel rebar, which has therefore not been melted. Satellite images indicate temperatures insufficiently high to melt structural steel. The photograph of a dripping steel element being pulled out of the rubble pile is nowhere near detailed enough to draw any useful conclusions.

In case you're not counting me as someone who's actually read Jones's article, please go to http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero
for some more detailed comments on this particular piece of intentional disinformation.

Dave

Wrong Dave, you obviously did not read to carefully. Jones clearly shows how a eutectic composition of iron and sulfur can significantly lower the melting point, even to 1000C if there is enough sulfur, which there was.

Wildcat, you are really reaching for straws. It is people like you and your unbacked statements that keep the truth movement growing everyday.

Please show me where Jones says the molten iron/steel is an ongoing thermite reaction. Please show me.

If you are just going to deny that there was molten iron at the site, i will ignore you.

[WildCat]

Wildcat, you are really reaching for straws. It is people like you and your unbacked statements that keep the truth movement growing everyday.
What unbacked statements? Your claims, prove them. Of course, you can't because everything I said was a lie by you is actually a lie.

Please show me where Jones says the molten iron/steel is an ongoing thermite reaction. Please show me.
Read his latest paper: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf
He absolutely claims that.

You admitted it was an idiotic claim, yet still you follow him as if he was the messiah.

If you are just going to deny that there was molten iron at the site, i will ignore you.
Of course you will, your MO is to run off when someone calls you out on your misinformation, lies, and ridiculous theories just like when you ran away from your horizontal ejections thread. Remember that thread? The one where you claimed NWO men disquised as maintenance workers carted tens of thousands of pounds of bombs to all 110 floors of the WTC and nobody noticed the bomb the size of a tractor trailer in the middle of every floor? And you also needed thermite and squibs to complete the demolition! Oh, here it is in case you forgot: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119792

Maybe it's time you made a dramatic exit again in order to avoid the tough questions?

[kimota]

Sorry that my post's phraseology set off your debunker reflex, Wildcat. Let me rephrase my original post.

Let's pretend Jones is plausible.
Let's pretend the cutter device exists.
If such imaginary device performs in the thermal manner described, would the load bearing column appear a) to be sliced in two or b) to be warped, melted, squashed and other manner of extreme physical distortion?

If your answer is b), then the photo is not evidence. Hence, the point and laugh at Jones' report as papasmurf requested.

Of course, if one can pretend that Jones is right, and pretend that "thermite cutter charges" exist, then I supposed that one can go ahead and pretend that it would make a relatively even slice with no other effect on the column. Just be aware that it's still pretending.

[papasmurf]

You just showed me an excellent peer reviewed article that is in the Environmentalist journal by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan as proof for your ridiculous assertion...

The article talks about energetic materials that are combusted at different points in time during the course of months after the collapse...

"The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as
a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found
within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite
materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow
ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, short-lived, and
possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have
quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The
combustible materials available, after a month or two of
smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to
be those that were less likely to have burned completely on
earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic
materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the
spikes in VOCs seen on those dates."

Show me where he talks about thermite reaction lasting for weeks...

[papasmurf]

Double post sorry.

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong Dave, you obviously did not read to carefully. Jones clearly shows how a eutectic composition of iron and sulfur can significantly lower the melting point, even to 1000C if there is enough sulfur, which there was.

You're conflating hypothesis with observation. Jones hypothesises that a sufficiently high concentration of sulfur in a eutectic could have lowered the melting point to 1000ºC, as was observed in small areas in corroded steel from WTC7. However, as usual he stops short of attempting any actual calculations to determine how much sulfur would have been needed to produce the amount of liquid observed. As for your comment "which there was", that's not borne out by the evidence. Jones hypothesises the source of sulfur as being from a thermite formulation, which is simply an extension of his original thermite hypothesis.

There's no proof here, simply a house of cards where Jones proposes a series of ever more complex hypotheses to counter the faults in his original hypothesis. He isn't starting from the evidence and trying to explain it, he's starting from dogma and trying to force it to fit the evidence. He's revised this paper repeatedly to do so, a process he himself has, ironically, criticised in others (who weren't actually doing so) as "saving the hypothesis", and characterised as the opposite of the scientific method.

If you are just going to deny that there was molten iron at the site, i will ignore you.

There is no convincing evidence of molten iron anywhere on the WTC site on or after 9-11 other than the small amounts produced by cutting torches during the cleanup operations. There is limited video and eyewitness evidence that points to molten metal being present as would be expected from the temperatures involved, but there has never been any plausible evidence that any of this was molten iron or steel.

Dave

[WildCat]

Show me where he talks about thermite reaction lasting for weeks...

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center
(WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero
(GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
• Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the
destruction of the WTC buildings.
• Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the
debris pile.
• Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy;
and
• A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was
pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have
not been adequately explained as the results of a normal
structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely,
such fires are better explained given the presence of
chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel
and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical
suppressants.
Done, bold emphasis mine.

[papasmurf]

Done, bold emphasis mine. [/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.

What is your background anyway? How can you make assertions without backing them up?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

You are only making the truth movement larger.

[Jonnyclueless]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.

What is your background anyway? How can you make assertions without backing them up?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

You are only making the truth movement larger.

You don't get it do you? The whole problem is that Jones doesn't use any science in his arguments and doesn't back his own statements up with any science, thus they aren't proven.

It's like me telling you Santa Claus is real and then you asking everyone to show where I am scientifically wrong in my research.


And making the truth movement larger? What did you kids break the 100s barrier now?

[papasmurf]

You don't get it do you? The whole problem is that Jones doesn't use any science in his arguments and doesn't back his own statements up with any science, thus they aren't proven.

It's like me telling you Santa Claus is real and then you asking everyone to show where I am scientifically wrong in my research.


And making the truth movement larger? What did you kids break the 100s barrier now?


Doesn't use any science? I've read them and it is all science.

What qualifies you to say they are not science? Your name does suit you very well.

People like you are the reason the truth movement is growing, rather than falling like you people like to pretend is happening.

[WildCat]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.
No, in his conclusion (which I already posted) he specifically claims thermite. What other self-oxidizing material do you think he had in mind? Do you now admit he claims it was burning for weeks?

What is your background anyway?
I know how to read with comprehension.

How can you make assertions without backing them up?
Such as?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.
Why don't you prove we're all liars? Post your evidence of molten steel. You won't be able to of course, because it is you who is lying.

You are only making the truth movement larger.
Evidence?

[johnny karate]

anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

If molten steel was present, and its presence indicates an inside job, how has this startling and rather obvious information failed to be discerned and/or revealed by every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet?

[beachnut]

Doesn't use any science? I've read them and it is all science.

What qualifies you to say they are not science? Your name does suit you very well.

People like you are the reason the truth movement is growing, rather than falling like you people like to pretend is happening.
Jones is the anti-science guy! He made up thermite and cherry picks the most obscure things about 9/11 and tries to make them a smoking gun for his delusion. He was fired for not using science.

You are the reason 9/11 truth is growing, ignorance on 9/11 and on the topics required to understand it.
Your lack of knowledge is why the truth movement gained one person.
You have that backwards, you are the reason the truth movement grew by one!

Your ability to ignore 110 acres of office contents to feed a fire in a pile of debris, is just one of your traits that makes you a truther. Your failed logic has you with the false information experts of 9/11 truth. Thermite, was made up by Jones 4 years after 9/11. Do you understand thermite would be the worse thing for trying to hide using it. Zero signs of thermite at the WTC.

[Minadin]

People, let me say this. It is not my belief that thermite was used that drives me and most people in the truth movement. It is the questions, unexplained phenomena, and holes in the official story that have not been answered yet in any reasonable way that drives us.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, and I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's not any special knowledge any of them possess, but the lack of it, which drives the conspiratorial mind. Among competant professionals in the industries of building design, fire safety, demolition, first responders, and the like, there remains very little that could be described as "unexplained phenomena" as far as the mechanics of the disaster. I would imagine the same would go for experts in military issues or aviation as well.

Most people who aren't experts in one of these areas will base their opinion on what those experts are saying and consider that to be resonable. Perhaps conspiracy theorists differ specifically from your typical citizen in what they consider to be reason.

[papasmurf]

If molten steel was present, and its presence indicates an inside job, how has this startling and rather obvious information failed to be discerned and/or revealed by every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet?

It wasn't investigated. There are a number of eyewitness accounts saying it was there by firefighters and other workers. It was there. End of story.

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

[Sparky]

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

There was a proper investigation. I'm satisfied with the results. End of story.

[papasmurf]

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, and I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's not any special knowledge any of them possess, but the lack of it, which drives the conspiratorial mind. Among competant professionals in the industries of building design, fire safety, demolition, first responders, and the like, there remains very little that could be described as "unexplained phenomena" as far as the mechanics of the disaster. I would imagine the same would go for experts in military issues or aviation as well.

Most people who aren't experts in one of these areas will base their opinion on what those experts are saying and consider that to be resonable. Perhaps conspiracy theorists differ specifically from your typical citizen in what they consider to be reason.

What's odd is that none of the experts will put their money where there mouth is. I have seen not seen anyone of these experts come out and try to explain the phenomena in a sincere manner. You tell us they all "agree". Agree on what?

The NIST report has been shown to be full of holes and unbacked theories. I want to hear it from the experts themselves.

Unfortunately there is a lack of these people coming out in support of the official theory. Where are these experts that you refer to? There is little testimony that accounts for what happened, and little attempt to debunk Steven Jones completely.

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

[johnny karate]

It wasn't investigated. There are a number of eyewitness accounts saying it was there by firefighters and other workers. It was there. End of story.

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

And my point is that in almost seven years, it seems that only Truthers such as yourself are interested in this "molten steel" phenomenon.

Why aren't there investigative journalists in Europe or perhaps Interpol agents that share your curiosity and suspicion?

Why isn't there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet, in some kind of official capacity that can confirm your beliefs?

[johnny karate]

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

Tell that to these people (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm).

[papasmurf]

There was a proper investigation. I'm satisfied with the results. End of story.

No...no there wasn't.

End of story.

[Sparky]

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

Because, as P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

[Evilgiraffe]

What's odd is that none of the experts will put their money where there mouth is. I have seen not seen anyone of these experts come out and try to explain the phenomena in a sincere manner. You tell us they all "agree". Agree on what?

The NIST report has been shown to be full of holes and unbacked theories. I want to hear it from the experts themselves.

Unfortunately there is a lack of these people coming out in support of the official theory. Where are these experts that you refer to? There is little testimony that accounts for what happened, and little attempt to debunk Steven Jones completely.

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.


The lack of experts coming forward to defend the NIST explanation is explained quite simply. The research community (barring a few nutballs and agenda-driven liars) have looked at the theory, the evidence for it, and found it satisfactory.

There is nothing of importance left to explain and the serious researchers have moved on to more pressing matters.... Something the truth movement should have done years ago.

[beachnut]

Because, as P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

That is why the truth movement grows.


Knowledge coupled with sound judgment can cure those afflicted with Jones Thermite Lies.

[Jonnyclueless]

Doesn't use any science? I've read them and it is all science.


I don't doubt that to YOU it would seem like science. After all, he is telling you what you want to hear. My claim about Santa Claus is all science too, as I have read it.

[Clippy]

The lack of experts coming forward to defend the NIST explanation is explained quite simply. The research community (barring a few nutballs and agenda-driven liars) have looked at the theory, the evidence for it, and found it satisfactory.

Any evidence for that? Have there been surveys of the experts?

[Jonnyclueless]

BTW, we should also not the lack of people coming out to support the theory of gravity and the earth being round. The flat earth society is just growing and growing. Maybe when the Twoof movement reaches the size of the flat earth society, you might start making a dent.

[beachnut]

What's odd is that none of the experts will put their money where there mouth is. I have seen not seen anyone of these experts come out and try to explain the phenomena in a sincere manner. You tell us they all "agree". Agree on what?

The NIST report has been shown to be full of holes and unbacked theories. I want to hear it from the experts themselves.

Unfortunately there is a lack of these people coming out in support of the official theory. Where are these experts that you refer to? There is little testimony that accounts for what happened, and little attempt to debunk Steven Jones completely.

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.
You missed the many reports and studies down on the WTC. I expect you are behind a few years looking up reports on 9/11. Some cost money! You failed again.

The NIST report is not full of holes, you have been told that and you repeat it mindlessly. Stop being a drone.
You spew these lies and fail to provide evidence. Nice try, but stop pushing lies.

Wrong again, there are many reports and they blow your ideas out of the water. BTW, your bogus movement of fools has 0.00087 percent of all engineers who support you. What a majority! Lol

Jones is a fraud. If Jones is a fraud? Thermite? Do you understand not a single piece of thermite evidence was found? Your movement only grows with the addition of people who are in complete ignorance over 9/11 issues.

[Evilgiraffe]

Has there been much 9/11 related traffic in the respectable journals recently?

No. Ergo, the respectable researchers have moved on.

[uk_dave]

Any evidence for that? Have there been surveys of the experts?

Go ahead then.

[twinstead]

One would think a 'survey of the experts' is EXACTLY what the truth movement would have concentrated on first. The reason why they haven't? As long as an expert doesn't explicitly state he has no problem with the official account, then he can be considered a potential advocate of the conspiracy theories, at least in the truther's minds.

I also claim that this earth-shattering evidence they claim to have would be laughed out of any legitimate court in the land. What do the truthers do to challenge that? You'd think the courts would be full of lawsuits. Nope. Their answer is to post on relatively obscure internet sites and discussion forums.

These aren't the actions of a coherent movement. These are actions of people who know deep down that real experts and law enforcement agencies would laugh their butts off at them.

[papasmurf]

So is anyone going to explain the molten iron/steel or are you just going reach desperately for straws and try to insult me?

I'd welcome any solid theory that explains the pools of molten metal, but so far thermite is the only plausible explanation.

[papasmurf]

You don't get it do you? The whole problem is that Jones doesn't use any science in his arguments and doesn't back his own statements up with any science, thus they aren't proven.

It's like me telling you Santa Claus is real and then you asking everyone to show where I am scientifically wrong in my research.


And making the truth movement larger? What did you kids break the 100s barrier now?

Did you even read what Jones wrote? The latest article that Wildcat was so kind to show us is in the Environmentalist journal.... Not science?

You are the one making the outrageous and unsupported claims.

If it's not science, you should be able to pull apart Jones's article piece by piece into shreds, but i highly doubt you can even begin to do that, because you are johnnyclueless.


What is your expertise that allows you to assert without evidence that Jones is not using science? (this is a trick question because not even an expert can assert something without supporting it)

[WildCat]

So is anyone going to explain the molten iron/steel
What molten iron/steel?

I'd welcome any solid theory that explains the pools of molten metal,
Pools of molten metal, or pools of molten steel?

but so far thermite is the only plausible explanation.
So now you are also claiming, like Jones, that there was thermite burning for weeks in the pile?

[Mancman]

You haven't showed me he lied in the least bit. This is a mere assertion and is not proven.

He claims the office fires did not reach 1000C, as does NIST. You say they were just because one test with massive amounts of wood was able to show that is possible for an office fire to get to 1000C. This is not proof of any lies.



NIST does not claim the fire failed to reach 1000 C. Haven't you looked at any of the fire simulations they performed?
You continue to deny 1000 C is possible but have yet to provide any evidence. Here is your problem compounded:

Glass, brass electric fixtures, and lighter brass parts on typewriters and machinery, fused freely at many points in most all stories above the fifth. (Temperatures estimated at 1400 to 1800 degrees Fahr.) Copper wire was not so generally fused, but incipient fusion (slightly in excess of 1900 degrees Fahr.) was noted in several places in the seventh, eighth and ninth stories and a fairly large stranded copper cable was melted by heat from the fire at several points in the rear of the eleventh story.
The highest temperature noted in any story (estimated at slightly in excess of 2000 degrees Fahr.) was in the N. W. corner of the eighth, where the cast iron frame of a typewriter was fused.

The temperatures rarely exceeded 1900 degrees, but were probably in excess of 1800 degrees for considerable periods in several stories.

This is from the Parker Building fire report: http://www.archive.org/details/effectoffirerepo00britrich


So we have areas of molten copper which requires at least 1083 C, a claim that the fires were rarely above 1038 C but above 982 C for 'considerable periods'.

And this is from a regular office fire in 1908. The combustible load of a building in 1908 would be well below that of 2001.

[papasmurf]

Steel is metal...

You lose wildcat.

[WildCat]

Steel is metal...
But metal is not necessarily steel, and you did claim molten steel, correct?

You lose wildcat.
How is that? Have you posted any evidence of molten steel yet? Of course you haven't.

[papasmurf]

It's in the article by steven jones.

The molten beams being pulled out that are still glowing are steel, because the beams were made of steel. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me.

He also gives reasons for why it wouldn't be aluminum.

[SDC]

This thread makes me wish I were a Stevens Tech grad, so I could cut it out of my will, or take back the millions I gave to build the gym, or wrote a snippy letter of protest to the alumni magazine. Or something equally effective.

Sheesh. How much lower can the Trutherians sink?

[papasmurf]

This thread makes me wish I were a Stevens Tech grad, so I could cut it out of my will, or take back the millions I gave to build the gym, or wrote a snippy letter of protest to the alumni magazine. Or something equally effective.

Sheesh. How much lower can the Trutherians sink?

Oh god, SDC is back. God help us.


I find it funny that no one denied that there was molten steel for a long time. People talked about it, it was mentioned on the news, by workers, there are photos of it.

All finally the implications of that molten steel being there are brought out, and all of a sudden that molten steel was never there.

[Grizzly Bear]

It's in the article by steven jones.

The molten beams being pulled out that are still glowing are steel, because the beams were made of steel. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me.

I hope you realize that molten means that the steel is in a liquefied state, and that a beam would not be very recognizable in such a state. Steel would glow red at the temperatures observed in the debris pile so the 'glow' is hardly strange.

[beachnut]

So is anyone going to explain the molten iron/steel or are you just going reach desperately for straws and try to insult me?

I'd welcome any solid theory that explains the pools of molten metal, but so far thermite is the only plausible explanation.
There is no thermite, and you have zero evidence of molten metal.

Jones made it up, he thinks people carried bags of thermite into the WTC and wired it for 9/11. He is pure nuts on this idea. He made it up.

You have no evidence. A piece of hot metal is not melted, it is hot. You can not pick up moten metal.

His cut columns were done after 9/11, makes him a liar.
The floors smashed together were done by gravity, not thermite; another lie by Jones.
His entire paper is a joke and now you present the motel metal, no photos and no evidence just hearsay. Do you understand hearsay? Jones is twisting peoples words to fool you.
You win everyone. Gravity wins.

Congratulations, I am gone now. I won't be back for a long time... perhaps never.I think you have a problem with a few definitions. Molten, and a long time. A "long time" for you is a few days, "perhaps never", perhaps not.

I can't see your grades remaining above 3.0 for much longer based on your defense of stupid. After you gain some knowledge, you are going to be upset with Jones.

[Grizzly Bear]

Oh god, SDC is back. God help us.
People talked about it, it was mentioned on the news, by workers, there are photos of it.

And how many can you verify were witnesses that could certifiably identify the metal they saw specifically as steel? Seeing that there is such an alternation between metal and steel should be very telling that many witnesses probably were not in metallurgy.

[WildCat]

The molten beams being pulled out that are still glowing are steel, because the beams were made of steel. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me.
Are you now backtracking to say "'red hot' = molten"?

This means you admit there was no molten steel, yes?

[papasmurf]

exhibit A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s

[papasmurf]

Are you now backtracking to say "'red hot' = molten"?

This means you admit there was no molten steel, yes?

You wish...

Not mutually exclusive at all, nor what i meant. I mean dripping with molten steel. Yellow-orange hot.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

[beachnut]

You wish...

Not mutually exclusive at all, nor what i meant. I mean dripping with molten steel. Yellow-orange hot.


That could be a piece of wood, with white hot ashes falling off. Darn, that does not look like liquid to me. Gravity wins again.


Jones never said dripping metal did he? Are you making the dripping up?


Jones is always changing his story line as he is shown facts. He switches photos shown here! http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/10/gravy-on-wtc7.html (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/10/gravy-on-wtc7.html)
And not he has this photo in his latest VERSION of his paper of fantasy fraud. Talked about here. http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-comments-on-hot-core-photo.html (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-comments-on-hot-core-photo.html)
So his new photo are cuts being made after 9/11, Jones tries to pass off as hot metal due to thermite. It is sad his madness on 9/11 is not seen by "smart" engineering students.

[WildCat]

You wish...

Not mutually exclusive at all, nor what i meant. I mean dripping with molten steel. Yellow-orange hot.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg
No, it's not dripp9ing. And it's certainly not molten. And what's all that metal that isn't even red hot in contact with your "molten" metal?

You need to try again.

[papasmurf]

Not dripping?

Ok, wildcat.

OKEY DOKEY!!!!!


For the rest of you that have functioning retinas, here is exhibit B, but keep your ears open for this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk&feature=related

[WildCat]

Not dripping?

Ok, wildcat.

OKEY DOKEY!!!!!


For the rest of you that have functioning retinas, here is exhibit B, but keep your ears open for this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p6UuGE0plk&feature=related
Yes, he says it is "red hot". Your claim is molten.

Do you intend to post evidence of molten steel? Is this too hard of a question?

[WildCat]

Oh, and don't forget to explain how thermite can keep steel hot for weeks.

[johnny karate]

And my point is that in almost seven years, it seems that only Truthers such as yourself are interested in this "molten steel" phenomenon.

Why aren't there investigative journalists in Europe or perhaps Interpol agents that share your curiosity and suspicion?

Why isn't there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet, in some kind of official capacity that can confirm your beliefs?

Bump for papasmurf.

[SDC]

But you see, at good old Stevens Tech, Papasmurf learned that these all mean the same: metal = iron = steel. And red hot = orange hot = molten = liquid dripping off the beams.

You mean, you mean they don't all mean the same thing?

[twinstead]

Even given molten steel, and it's not given, how exactly would it be evidence of thermite again?

[papasmurf]

Oh, and don't forget to explain how thermite can keep steel hot for weeks.

No i explained it 3 times already to you, but you are too thick to get it.

The molten steel is in the basement, many feet underground. Once a massive amount of the steel is molten, it will remain molten for a very long period of time given the right conditions.

The volcano analogy given by Jones is excellent.

[papasmurf]

But you see, at good old Stevens Tech, Papasmurf learned that these all mean the same: metal = iron = steel. And red hot = orange hot = molten = liquid dripping off the beams.

You mean, you mean they don't all mean the same thing?
Edited for civility

That in no way resembles anything that i said, thought, or otherwise implied. You are the epitome of why no one has made any progress on debunking the truth movement. Why so many more people join it everyday because they fail to find the answers, why so many find that the supporters of the official story are nothing but shills.

[Alferd_Packer]

Once a massive amount of the steel is molten, it will remain molten for a very long period of time given the right conditions.


And once this steel did cool off, what happened to it? Where are the physical remnants of it? Where are the large solidified puddles of steel?

Oh, an BTW, there is another thread for you.

[papasmurf]

I understand that molten means liquid, but if it is dripping, part of it is molten.

The other part is yellow-orange hot, maybe red at the end. This indicates temperatures well over 1300-1500 degrees.

So, the questions still remain on how it got that hot.

We have people here saying the photo is not dripping, not molten.
We have people saying it's wood.

And you want people to believe that we are the liars.

[papasmurf]

And once this steel did cool off, what happened to it? Where are the physical remnants of it? Where are the large solidified puddles of steel?

Oh, an BTW, there is another thread for you.

The pools were removed with massive machines and cranes. Alot of it mixed in with concrete.

Alot of these previously molten wrecks of steel and concrete are on display at memorial sites.

I went to a history museum years ago that had massive chunks of this molten metal and concrete. It was like giant globs of rock and metal with twisted beams sticking out of them and stuff.

[Alferd_Packer]

The pools were removed with massive machines and cranes.

How? How were they trucked off site?




Alot of it mixed in with concrete.


(alot is not a word)

proof please.



Alot of these previously molten wrecks of steel and concrete are on display at memorial sites.

Where? got pictures?

I went to a history museum years ago that had massive chunks of this molten metal and concrete. It was like giant globs of rock and metal with twisted beams sticking out of them and stuff.


Where?

[Alferd_Packer]

It was like giant globs of rock and metal with twisted beams sticking out of them and stuff.


How come the beams weren't melted as well?

[WildCat]

I understand that molten means liquid, but if it is dripping, part of it is molten.
And there is no evidence it is dripping. The man in your video says nothing about it dripping or being molten.

The other part is yellow-orange hot, maybe red at the end. This indicates temperatures well over 1300-1500 degrees.
It's already been pointed out to you why this kind of analysis is fraught with problems.

So, the questions still remain on how it got that hot.
It got that hot because it was in a burning mountain of debris for several weeks at least.

We have people here saying the photo is not dripping, not molten.
Which it isn't.

We have people saying it's wood.
No, people said it "could be" wood. And certainly some of that might be wood. It might also be burning plastic. What it clearly isn't is molten steel.

And you want people to believe that we are the liars.
You prove it over and over.

[papasmurf]

How come the beams weren't melted as well?

Some of them did not completely become molten, so when they cooled, they were relatively intact, although warped and such.

There are pictures. I will find them when i am done with my semiconductors homework.

[WildCat]

The molten steel is in the basement, many feet underground.
What molten steel? Are you referring to your picture? If so, can you show your evidence that this was from the basement?

Once a massive amount of the steel is molten, it will remain molten for a very long period of time given the right conditions.
If the heat in the pile was sufficient to maintain the temperature of the material, isn't it also capable of heating it to that temperature?

The volcano analogy given by Jones is excellent.
Whatever that is.

[MarkyX]

I can't believe he is actually using that picture as "proof" of his argument.

Brent Blanchard has already stated that there was no way to pick up any "molten steel" using the excavators because they would cease to function after 2000 degrees.

In short, what papasmurf suggests with that picture is physically impossible.

[johnny karate]

And my point is that in almost seven years, it seems that only Truthers such as yourself are interested in this "molten steel" phenomenon.

Why aren't there investigative journalists in Europe or perhaps Interpol agents that share your curiosity and suspicion?

Why isn't there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet, in some kind of official capacity that can confirm your beliefs?

Bump #2 for papasmurf.

[papasmurf]

Karate, how do you know they don't?

[johnny karate]

Because no one in any kind of investigative or law enforcement capacity has come forward to express those suspicions.

Remember, my original question asked why none had "discerned and/or revealed" the information.

If you're going to play the ridiculous "maybe they suspect, but are just keeping quiet about it" canard, it doesn't absolve you from explaining how such a phenomenon occurred on a global scale.

[WildCat]

If the heat in the pile was sufficient to maintain the temperature of the material, isn't it also capable of heating it to that temperature?
Which means no thermite is required, correct?

[beachnut]

Edited for civility

That in no way resembles anything that i said, thought, or otherwise implied. You are the epitome of why no one has made any progress on debunking the truth movement. Why so many more people join it everyday because they fail to find the answers, why so many find that the supporters of the official story are nothing but shills.
Lies of Jones, that you believe and proven wrong since 9/11. Did you call someone "silly dumb confused". It is hard to believe people lack enough knowledge to fall for Jones' junk, it is clearly junk, what is wrong with you?

This is a lie, the cuts were made after 9/11. Please explain why Jones makes up lies?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/jonesfrau1.jpg

These floors were smashed together, no thermite, no molten steel, just more lies and false ideas by Jones. Please explain?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesLie.jpg


You never explained why Jones keeps these lies in his paper. Why?

[papasmurf]

Lies of Jones, that you believe and proven wrong since 9/11. Did you call someone "silly dumb confused". It is hard to believe people lack enough knowledge to fall for Jones' junk, it is clearly junk, what is wrong with you?

This is a lie, the cuts were made after 9/11. Please explain why Jones makes up lies?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/jonesfrau1.jpg

These floors were smashed together, no thermite, no molten steel, just more lies and false ideas by Jones. Please explain?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/JonesLie.jpg


You never explained why Jones keeps these lies in his paper. Why?


I still don't have solid proof that those collumns were cut after the collapse. Would love to know the truth though, since i am part of the truth movement afterall.

[WildCat]

I still don't have solid proof that those collumns were cut after the collapse.
So the pics, videos, and contemporary accounts aren't enough for you?

And btw...

If the heat in the pile was sufficient to maintain the temperature of the material, isn't it also capable of heating it to that temperature?

Which means no thermite is required, correct?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Some of them did not completely become molten, so when they cooled, they were relatively intact, although warped and such.


But they were in contact with what you claim to be molten steel. How, then, could those beams remain solid?

[papasmurf]

But they were in contact with what you claim to be molten steel. How, then, could those beams remain solid?

Take a materials class, and you will understand.

Temperature can vary across a solid body.

Either you people are dumb or pretending to be dumb, but it is really said that you have to ask these sorts of questions.

[beachnut]

I still don't have solid proof that those collumns were cut after the collapse. Would love to know the truth though, since i am part of the truth movement afterall. Sorry, it is solid proof, you just like fantasy better. But then you need to heed your own advice, or attack, or something! The pile of floors is a pile of floors no thermite, Jones lied. The cuts were after 9/11, it is a fact you can't find. Sad, Jones still lied. He uses stuff until you figure it out, then when all the dirt dumb members figure out it is bogus, he switches to something new. First he just had the one column, then he added the multiple columns. First he used just thermite, sometimes he has RDX or other explosives. He is a guy who moves the goal posts to fool you! A student engineer whose grades are inversely proportional to your understanding of 9/11. (I don't believe your grades, how can you be so…)

Either you people are dumb or pretending to be dumb, but it is really said ... And you believe Jones? Quite said… ?
Darn, you are like Jones. You can use his paper to debunk him. Just use his references, they will lead you to the real truth. Jones', false since September 2005.

It is quite said. Sad?

[johnny karate]

Because no one in any kind of investigative or law enforcement capacity has come forward to express those suspicions.

Remember, my original question asked why none had "discerned and/or revealed" the information.

If you're going to play the ridiculous "maybe they suspect, but are just keeping quiet about it" canard, it doesn't absolve you from explaining how such a phenomenon occurred on a global scale.

Bump for papasmurf.

[volatile]

I still don't have solid proof that those collumns were cut after the collapse.

You don't have any "solid proof" that they were cut before the collapse either, do you?

For which scenario - the implantation of hundreds of tonnes of silent explosives and the impossible use of thermite to cut columns diagonally (when it only functions vertically); or the collapse of the building due to fire and structural damage - is there more evidence for?

Honestly, I'd love to hear your answer to this.

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

I agree absolutely, in the same way that anyone who tries - for example - to deny that an airliner hit the Pentagon by discrediting the testimony of over a hundred eyewitnesses is a fraud and a liar. However, in the former case there is no credible evidence to whitewash. There are anecdotal accounts that are based on the nonexistent ability to identify the chemical composition of molten metal by its appearance, there are arguments that claim molten iron/sulfur eutectic based on the logical fallacies of affirming the consequent and circular reasoning, and there are claims that are simply lies that have been repeatedly exposed. That's all. Therefore, I can be confident that you're not talking about me when you use the terms "a fraud and a liar".

Dave

[Alferd_Packer]

You wish...

Not mutually exclusive at all, nor what i meant. I mean dripping with molten steel. Yellow-orange hot.

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg

Actually that looks like molten glass to me.

Prove me wrong.

[WildCat]

If the heat in the pile was sufficient to maintain the temperature of the material, isn't it also capable of heating it to that temperature?

Which means no thermite is required, correct?
I'm going to keep asking it, can you answer papasmurf?

[WildCat]

Looks like papasmurf is stumped by the question...

[Mr. Skinny]

Looks like papasmurf is stumped by the question...
papasmurf has been suspended for three days, WildCat.

[WildCat]

Oh! Didn't know that.