Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[RedIbis]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).

[mrbaracuda]

unusual species

Species? A German is confused.

could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure

What about the new 'WTC7'? I assume it is at GZ and thus renders you a strange person, possibly a liar.

[pomeroo]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).


Some of us believe that the new WTC 7 opened in 2006. Where are we going wrong?


UPDATE: You beat me, mrbaracuda!

[WildCat]

Is this the "journal" in question?

http://www.the-environmentalist.org/

[~enigma~]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.Would you be so kind as to list what chemicals are in the human body. Just the elements...not compounds. That should be a simple task since you can reference wikipedia if you want.It's not hard to see where they're going with thisYup...they are removing themselves (at least in this paper which I have no desire to read) from the 9/11 is an inside job consfearacy. I expect the requisite wise cracksPut your application in for the million. but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?After you list the chemical elements contained in a human body you should have a pretty strong indicator for your answer.
If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ?Did they tear down WTC 7 last night? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.Ah...you think that is why there have been delays. I suggest you do a forum search before you make another "mistake" like you did with no WTC 7 at ground zero.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).Considering what elements are in the human body AND in common construction material AND in offices, what astounding news do they make about the chemical stew at ground zero and why should I waste time reading their "un-news"?

[RedIbis]

Species? A German is confused.



What about the new 'WTC7'? I assume it is at GZ and thus renders you a strange person, possibly a liar.

I said in that block specifically for that reason. WTC 7 was the only bldg that collapsed outside of that block.

[PhantomWolf]

Well according to most sources, the delay in the rebuilding is because of finacial battles over who is going to pay for it.

BTW, when is Jones et al going to publish something in a respected Journal that actually deals with topics in line with Structual Enginneer rather than internet journals and those that are totally off topic (Economics and Eniviromental)?

[RedIbis]

Some of us believe that the new WTC 7 opened in 2006. Where are we going wrong?


UPDATE: You beat me, mrbaracuda!

Obviously, you are going to focus on some minutia that I'll take a moment to try and clear up. I referred, perhaps hastily to Ground Zero as the block within which the WTC 1-6 stood. I'm well aware that across the street WTC 7was rebuilt.

Can we now discuss the article?

[Civilized Worm]

Is this the "journal" in question?

http://www.the-environmentalist.org/


No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

[~enigma~]

Can we now discuss the article?
If you are going to ignore my post, i guess not...

[~enigma~]

No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669
Why can't I find either Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones through a search there?

[RedIbis]

If you are going to ignore my post, i guess not...

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.

[Civilized Worm]

I don't know, but their article is certainly there as RedIbis has already linked it.

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.


What are we supposed to debunk? What is the claim they're making?

[Pardalis]

Can we now discuss the article?


Can you first respond to the mountain of evidence presented to you in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119800)?

You seem to have left the conversation without addressing the evidence. Seems to me the polite thing to do would be to acknowledge it and then move on to another topic.

But I'm not hoping your character has improved.

[~enigma~]

No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.
What games? Are you paranoid? I said I didn't read the article and I set forth my reasons. What do Ryan and Jones bring forth that is unexpected for the chemical stew that was more than expected at ground zero? i asked you to list the chemical elements found in the human body since that would go a long way to answering your question about "other than gravity." By your refusal to "play games" you are proving to everyone here that your questions are not honorable and your intent is to preach your ridiculous theory. You are sad and pathetic...

[beachnut]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).Funny, Benzene is found in Jet Fuel too, just looking at their failure of a paper. What a pathetic paper.
Oops, they said thermite, and thus the paper is another nut case crazy junk paper. But as an engineer I am just making a professional judgment. I already know Jones made up thermite and has zero evidence. Over 6 years and a few fringe people hang on for Jones et al next nut case ideas of woo.

Thermite, it proves this paper is another pile of scat. Bigfoot CTers need that pile real bad.

For RedIbis – how to debunk this paper. If they mention thermite, evidence was not found at the WTC, therefore thermite was not used – therefore the paper is trash. There was also zero evidence of explosives.

Recap: No thermite, there was no evidence found! Makes the paper junk, pure junk and a waste of time. These guys who did the paper are a few fringe guys with crazy ideas about 9/11. You need no chemical engineering expertise, or chemistry to debunk this. Just a rational, logical mind and a firm educational base from grade school.

Hint to debunking Jones: Take Jones' own references, with those references you can debunk Jones if you have a rational, logical, and sound judgment kind of mind. Simple! Try it instead of sitting around in awe of the idiot ideas expressed by these frauds.

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.
The paper is full of junk like this! Just false/flawed/wrong from the start, to end.

[WildCat]

It's actually here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

The woo in this one is strong:

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.

[~enigma~]

Oops, they said thermite
Another reason among the others that I don't want to or need to read this idiocy. So what are they claiming, that the chemical stew at ground zero wouldn't have been expected due to gravity but because thermite was used to cut columns (against gravity)? That is the biggest pile of bs I have ever heard in my life. Are Jones and Ryan in the running for idiot of the year?

[Pardalis]

Red Ibis' been here a whole year and he hasn't budged an iota from his position regardless of the massive amount of evidence everyone has provided for him, never once has he acknowledged one fact shown to him.

Does anybody feel this thread will be any different?

[~enigma~]

Is this a peer reviewed journal or one of those "pay for publishing and we call it reviewed" journals?

[Civilized Worm]

Where does it say this was peer reviewed? Who reviewed it?

[~enigma~]

Red Ibis' been here a whole year and he hasn't budged an iota from his position regardless of the massive amount of evidence everyone has provided for him, never once has he acknowledged one fact shown to him.

Does anybody feel this thread will be any different?
No but I will say if he gives this stupidity any credibility i fear that he is close to a psychotic break with reality.

[Alferd_Packer]

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.



Red's channeling Judy Woods.

Maybe they are not done sprinkling dirt over the site.

[~enigma~]

Where does it say this was peer reviewed? Who reviewed it?
Read the subject...says new article in peer reviewed journal.

[Pardalis]

No but I will say if he gives this stupidity any credibility i fear that he is close to a psychotic break with reality.

For a truther he's rather well mannered and civil, but his complete denial of facts and his total lack of intellectual integrity makes him no better than the most hostile truthers like Killtown, IMO.

And he wants to bait us to another "debunking", as if whatever we say is going to change his mind... :rolleyes:

Unfreakingbelievable.

[Civilized Worm]

I mean where on the journal does it say it's peer reviewed.

[~enigma~]

For a truther he's rather well mannered and civil, but his complete denial of facts and his total lack of intellectual integrity makes him no better than the most hostile truthers like Killtown, IMO.

And he wants to bait us to another "debunking", as if whatever we say is going to change his mind... :rolleyes:

Unfreakingbelievable.Until anyone can show me scientifically that the chemical stew at ground zero could not be explained by any means other than thermite, this idiotic sham of an article does not need debunking.

[Pardalis]

I mean where on the journal does it say it's peer reviewed.

He said it was published in "The Environmentalist".

Does he mean this website?

http://www.the-environmentalist.org/ :con2:

[~enigma~]

I mean where on the journal does it say it's peer reviewed.
That's why I am asking. I only said peer reviewed cause RedIbis said it but then again, he has lied before (in this thread even).

[WildCat]

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.
He's proposing thermite burning for weeks after the collapses.

[1337m4n]

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.

You might as well have posted an article about the kind of furniture used within the WTC. What is the claim? What is the relevance to 9/11 conspiracy theories? What point are you trying to get across?

Is this just going to be another one of those threads where you spend three hours insulting everyone who questions the relevance of your article, instead of taking all of three minutes to EXPLAIN the relevance?

[1337m4n]

He's proposing thermite burning for weeks after the collapses.

Thermite doesn't burn for weeks. There, your paper is debunked, RedIbis. Can we go now?

[Myriad]

The paper's conclusions: apparently, someone set off pockets of thermite thermate energetic nanocomposites in the rubble pile weeks and months after 9/11, causing spikes in levels of certain chemical species in the smoke.

Perhaps the high-altitude aerial chemtrails weren't penetrating to street level in downtown NYC so the whole 9/11 conspiracy was just a way to create big smoking rubble piles in which chemtrail-sprayers could be concealed.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Alferd_Packer]

Dr. Judy, where are you?

[RedIbis]

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

[Wolrab]

As Wildcat stated, the conclusion seems to hint around that thermite is the cause of these underground hot spots. Is there a thermite compound that can spontaneously stop the reaction and restart weeks later? Is it more likely that the underground fires smoldered like a coal fire and flared up when an oxygen pathway was opened or a new fuel source was reached?
Why would any of the chemicals listed in their paper not be expected in a place where no one has any idea what substances were stored or buried in the ground around GZ?
It seems to me this is just an attempt at gaining credibility for their own future reference.

With all the Mob connections with the building of the WTC, I would not be surprised if they took advantage of the excavations to get rid of some nasty industrial waste products.

[Mince]

Debunk Alert Siren:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_117124897a543527f1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13331)

[AZCat]

As Wildcat stated, the conclusion seems to hint around that thermite is the cause of these underground hot spots. Is there a thermite compound that can spontaneously stop the reaction and restart weeks later? Is it more likely that the underground fires smoldered like a coal fire and flared up when an oxygen pathway was opened or a new fuel source was reached?
Why would any of the chemicals listed in their paper not be expected in a place where no one has any idea what substances were stored or buried in the ground around GZ?
It seems to me this is just an attempt at gaining credibility for their own future reference. (emphasis mine)

Bingo.

[1337m4n]

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

No.

[Mancman]

Jones is still using the 1,3-DPP as evidence? What a fraud!

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2003/37/i16/abs/es030356l.html

[TheRedWorm]

should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Why should it? What does it mean to you?

[Jwheelz]

Again Steven Jones excludes very important information to try and sway people over to his side.

Bottom of page 4 --

EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at
levels ‘‘that dwarfed all others.’’ Swartz went on to say—
‘‘We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever
done’’ (Garrett 2003).

Now lets look at his reference -- http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

Funny that a person in the *truth* movement would leave that last line out.

RebIbis, your research skills are just like that of any other truther. You already know how you want things to have happened so you immediately discard anything that doesn't fit your distorted agenda.

Face it Red, you don't have the slightest clue as to what happened on 9/11 because you have fallen victim to truth movement propaganda. I expect that your pride is now standing in the way of you ever being able to admit the truth or possibly even see it for that matter.

[jsfisher]

The Environmentalist does appear to be one of the many low (or no) threshold "scholarly" journals. The oddest thing is why would it accept an article so far from its stated purpose (i.e. the Earth and the environment).

At any rate, here is my summary of the article:


Valiant researchers obtain air-quality data from the EPA under the FOIA.
Pretty graphs are drawn by valiant researchers based on data.
Thermite!


I don't think I left anything out.

[Pardalis]

It seems to me this is just an attempt at gaining credibility for their own future reference.

Not to mention they published it here

http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

They are sucking up to the environmentalists now. The truthers are going green?

[~enigma~]

Not to mention they published it here

http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

They are sucking up to the environmentalists now. The truthers are going green?
1/20/2009 is coming up very quickly. The truthers have to "diversify" otherwise they will be a black mark on USA history come 1/21/2009. Looks to me like their attempts at "diversification" are failing.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).

Joneses Work is Ludicrous, RedIbis, Just how much oxygen does it take to cut a column at the World Trade center?

[Myriad]

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?


The paper cited contains no such claim that high levels (or any levels) of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ. Why should anyone be concerned about a nonexistent finding?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[R.Mackey]

Well, looks like I have to write some letters again...

This paper is a sham. References to works that are not reviewed, rampant speculation, and above all, no useful conclusion.

I do give Dr. Jones credit for one -- exactly one -- thing, however. He actually defines a hypothesis. Not a hypothesis for the whole WTC Towers collapse, mind you, just a hypothesis for the very limited scope of effects that he discusses here in detail. His hypothesis, i.e. that unknown "nano-composites" are to blame for the heat and chemical species seen at the Pile, has already been discounted due to superior (and preceeding) work by Lioy et al. among others.

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.

This paper, like the Bentham paper, should never have been published. I'm not surprised that it showed up here, rather than a more suitable publication. I'll be interested to see what their editors have to say about this, and will keep you informed.

[LashL]

The Environmentalist does appear to be one of the many low (or no) threshold "scholarly" journals. The oddest thing is why would it accept an article so far from its stated purpose (i.e. the Earth and the environment).


The short answer: $3,000 publication fee (eta: courtesy of Mick Harrison, the twoofer lawyer who represented Kevin Ryan in his failed lawsuit).


At any rate, here is my summary of the article:


Valiant researchers obtain air-quality data from the EPA under the FOIA.
Pretty graphs are drawn by valiant researchers based on data.
Thermite!


I don't think I left anything out.


No, that looks about right.

[deep]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/), this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.


In addition to Boyle's Law, please name the other two laws that combine to form the combined gas law, then provide a brief description and at least five real-world examples for each. Next, describe the difference between the combined gas law and the ideal gas law, and describe why the ideal gas law is most accurate for monoatomic gases at high temperatures and low pressures.


It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?


Please analyze all ~1700 messages in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047, and choose twenty messages that best support the text quoted above, including a one paragraph summary of each. Then, write a short biography on the author of each chosen message, using whatever information you can find using Google. Finally, tie it all together with a short essay on how the background of each author contributes to his or her opinion, drawing heavily on comparisons to illustrate your point.


If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.


Name at least 100 literary characters with the initials GZ (use SH and TS if you run out), and explain in detail why you think the author chose those initials. Also include a short biography for each author, with at least one paragraph devoted to each member of the author's immediate family, plus any pets (past or present).


The full article can viewed in pdf form here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf).


List twelve bird species that are native to Western Africa and outline their migratory habits.


DEBUNKED.

[DC]

Well, looks like I have to write some letters again...

This paper is a sham. References to works that are not reviewed, rampant speculation, and above all, no useful conclusion.

I do give Dr. Jones credit for one -- exactly one -- thing, however. He actually defines a hypothesis. Not a hypothesis for the whole WTC Towers collapse, mind you, just a hypothesis for the very limited scope of effects that he discusses here in detail. His hypothesis, i.e. that unknown "nano-composites" are to blame for the heat and chemical species seen at the Pile, has already been discounted due to superior (and preceeding) work by Lioy et al. among others.

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.

This paper, like the Bentham paper, should never have been published. I'm not surprised that it showed up here, rather than a more suitable publication. I'll be interested to see what their editors have to say about this, and will keep you informed.

LOL the MIC "scientist" doesnt like the articel :)

[RedIbis]

List twelve bird species that are native to Western Africa and outline their migratory habits.


DEBUNKED.

Just 12?

[SDC]

OK, this is from the perspective of a librarian who manages subscriptions to this kind of online material all day every day. (That would be me.) Springer is the real thing, as a publisher, one of the most serious names in scientific publishing. All I know about this journal particularly is what they say at the site:

Aims and scope
"Diminishing energy and non-renewable resources, toxic wastes, loss of agricultural land and potable water supplies are key concerns shared by industry, governmental leaders and environmental professionals. The conflict of interests and goals that was once a gap is now bridged by The Environmentalist. This journal acts as a catalyst for environmental education, identifying available educational opportunities, and providing necessary guidelines and the missing framework for defining the more viable management mechanisms useful to industry, governmental policy-makers and environmental professionals.

"The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns. The Environmentalist contains elements applicable to the education and training of mankind at one level or the other, be it formal or non-formal schooling, specialist training, retraining of decision makers or communication to the public at large."

Well, it's definitely "soft" as a science journal. Certainly an odd place to put an article purporting to provide a basic argument about "therm*te" or its ilk. Here is the editorial board, with lots of Guelphers (Guelphians? Guelphomatics?):

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/image/cda_displayimage.jpg?SGWID=0-0-16-134617-0
The Environmentalist

Co-Editor-in-Chief: J.T. Trevors; P.G. Kevan
ISSN: 0251-1088 (print version)
ISSN: 1573-2991 (electronic version)
Journal no. 10669
Springer US
Online version available (http://www.springerlink.com/content/0251-1088)
Online First articles available (http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=issue&issn=0251-1088&volume=preprint&issue=preprint)


Description (http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669)
|
Editorial Board

Editorial Board

Co-Editors-in-Chief:
Peter G. Kevan
Depts. of Environmental Biology & Botany, University of Guelph, ON, Canada
Jack T. Trevors
Dept. of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, ON, Canada

Associate Editorial and Advisory Board:

Ernesto I. Badano, Puebla, Mexico; F.J. Egea González, Almeria, Spain; Marc Habash, Guelph, ON, Canada; M. Kassas, Giza, Egypt; Jonathan Knight, Berkshire, UK; M. Lisowski, Charleston, IL, USA; J.W.S. Longhurst, Bristol, UK; H.F. Ludwig, Bangkok, Thailand; J.F. Potter, Guildford, UK; G. Rees, Farnborough, UK; P. Sibley, Guelph, ON, Canada; U.E. Simonis, Berlin, Germany; M. Pugh Thomas, Liverpool, UK; V.G. Thomas, Guelph, ON, Canada; D. Waite, Regina, SK, Canada

[funk de fino]

LOL the MIC "scientist" doesnt like the articel :)

LOL "articel"

[RedIbis]

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.



The floor is yours.

[TheRedWorm]

Red
should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Why should it? What does it mean to you?


Red?

[RedIbis]

Red?

If you read the article, you might find the reported levels of Benzene, for example, somewhat of a concern. Maybe not.

[johnny karate]

Holy CRAP! There was Benzene found at Ground Zero!?! Why didn't someone point this out earlier?

[Arus808]

yeah. imagine that. Benzene.. You know, a principal component of combustion products produced by the burning of PVC (polyvinyl chloride).

PVC.. you know, common in HIGH RISE buildings, considering all those computer casings, filing cabinets, shelving, office supplies, xerox machines, piping, etc by the THOUSANDS in a 110 story OFFICE BUILDING.


Lets not forget the other uses, that Benzene is used in:
Nylon (some carpet contains nylon)
Certain rubbers
Drugs
dyes
lubricants
pesticides (wonder how many times, the WTC has been the subject of routine extermination of pests in the 30+ years since their construction).



A concern?

Guess Red has never worked in an office.

[WildCat]

Watch how Red dodges the question, and then changes the subject!

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Why should it? What does it mean to you?

If you read the article, you might find the reported levels of Benzene, for example, somewhat of a concern.

:dl:

eta: Or does Red think that benzene is an "energetic compound", which Jones uses as a euphemism for thermite/ate?

[SDC]

Springer is a serious company, but how is it shown that this article was peer-reviewed? Red I., are you simply assuming that, or did you find references to the reviews? Apologies (in advance) if I am being dense, here.

[Arus808]

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

[WildCat]

Springer is a serious company, but how is it shown that this article was peer-reviewed? Red I., are you simply assuming that, or did you find references to the reviews? Apologies (in advance) if I am being dense, here.
I can assure you that you are not being dense. I've seen no evidence of peer review, LashL says you just pay $3,000 to get it published.

LashL, do you have a source for that, even if it's off line?

[Evilgiraffe]

It appears the article has been published under Springer's Open Choice scheme. Details of how this works can be found here (http://www.springer.com/open+choice?SGWID=0-40359-12-115394-0).

I can't find any details about the peer review process but the fact that a generally respectable publisher like Springer is involved means there is less of a whiff of vanity publication than Jones' previous gaffe with the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal.

[Myriad]

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

The paper cited contains no such claim that high levels (or any levels) of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ. Why should anyone be concerned about a nonexistent finding?


The lack of a response by RedIbis suggests that he may now have realized that the paper does not actually claim to have found any "energetic compounds" whatsoever. He was deceived, by a paper that was carefully designed to deceive him.

What the paper says is that certain components of the smoke "can be explained by" the presence of "energetic nanocomposites" (which is no-I'm-not-crazy-why-do-you-ask-speak for "nanothermite.")

This is akin to stating that the presence of slightly elevated levels of CO2 in your bedroom can be explained by a ninja hiding in your closet. It's deceptive not because it's outright false, but because it's an open manhole for an affirming the consequent fallacy. A exists and can be explained by B (that is to say, B causes A), therefore B. A ninja in your closet can explain higher CO2 levels, so there's a ninja in your closet. Nanothermite can explain chemicals at GZ, so there's nanothermite "found" at GZ.

But whom will this trap catch? Certainly not the environmental scientists who read the journal regularly and will immediately realize that "can be explained by" is a very weak argument indeed, especially when that statement itself is not corroborated in the paper (that is, Jones did not demonstrate that energetic nanocomposites could cause the observed gasses; he only argues that they could hypothetically contain some of the same elements). They will simply put it aside as an unsupported hypothesis pending further stronger evidence.

Instead, the trap was designed to deceive RedIbis and truthers like him. To get him to rush over and breathlessly declare that "high levels of energetic compounds were found at GZ." To entice an endless chain of future truthers to credulously repeat, "High levels of mysterious energetic nanocomposites were found at GZ, and there's a peer reviewed paper that says so!" Sure, the journal's readership is not deceived, we're not deceived, and even RedIbis can now see how he was fooled for a while into claiming something silly that even Jones never actually said, but Jones doesn't care about that. His goal is to keep the rumors and hearsay flying, to drive business.

RedIbis, you are a victim of Jones' deception. He's played a practical joke on you, of sorts, at your expense and to his benefit. I'm sorry to have to point this out, but knowing it, I hope you will have a better chance to avoid being victimized this way in the future.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Crazy Chainsaw]

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

BENZENE is produced in hydrocarbon fires, the benzene ring is also the basic building block for TNT.
Cutting torches also produce benzene when first ignited.

[twinstead]

Benzene, you say? Hell, after a night of drinking and a heavy Mexican meal...

Oh, never mind.

[Heiwa]

First class article by Jones/Ryan. Look how the sect members shake in their weak foundations at JREF Forum.

[Civilized Worm]

First class article by Jones/Ryan. Look how the sect members shake in their weak foundations at JREF Forum.


Well perhaps you'd like to run through it's implications for us?

[T.A.M.]

Is "MAD" magazine a peer reviewed journal? I ask because they could probably get their crap printed in it, and it is about as relevant to 9/11, engineering, and physics, as "the environmentalist"?

TAM;)

Edit: Ahhh, I see, another attempt to sneak an article into a journal simply to make the statement "We have published a 9/11 related article in a peer reviewed journal".

They are getting desperate. Must be running out of legitimate physics and engineering journals to be turned down by.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Is "MAD" magazine a peer reviewed journal? I ask because they could probably get their crap printed in it, and it is about as relevant to 9/11, engineering, and physics, as "the environmentalist"?

TAM;)
MAD only does parody, they don't do parody of a parody.

[T.A.M.]

Here you go...

It is the 1st article in their "Online First" volume (the debut edition maybe).
It is listed as "Open access"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100165/?Content+Status=Accepted

TAM:)

[Blender Head]

Debunk Alert Siren:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_117124897a543527f1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13331)

Does it go "woo woo woo woo"?

[A W Smith]

vanity press

Since costs are involved in every step of the publication process, from peer-review to printing and hosting the final paper on dedicated servers, we ask that the author, or their institution or funding agency, pay a fee of $3,000 USD

[R.Mackey]

The floor is yours.


Thank you.

In terms of scholarship, this paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf) is no better than the rest of the nonsense produced by the Truth Movement. However, it is better organized, and at least legible, and as such is a much more useful case study for someone genuinely curious about the Scientific Method.

So let's begin. The first obvious problem (not counting the title or the abstract) is the following excerpt from Page 1:

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.

Is this true? Has the fire "not been adequately explained?" This assertion is offered without any support at all. In contrast, there are numerous examples of large but slow, contained fires, i.e. Centralia (http://www.centraliaminefire.com/), both natural and accidental, that resist any effort to fight them and even hundreds of years worth of rain.

The claim of "even one accelerated by jet fuel" is a total red herring. An accelerant is actually a problem in this example, because it leads to more rapid fuel exhaustion. The conditions needed, instead, are abundant fuel, limited airflow, and relative thermal isolation. All of this is obviously present in the basements of the World Trade Center Towers, roughly 20 meters high by 64 meters on a side, and densely packed with tens of thousands of tons of combustible materials, with little access to air.

The "chemical energetic materials" (sic) are not well defined. Is crushed furniture such a material? I would venture so, since wood and paper average 25 MJ / kg of chemical energy release in ordinary fires. So, technically, there's enough deliberate vagueness here to make a semantic argument. If Mr. Ryan means "there was a lot of combustible material," then we really can't argue. We know there was. It was there in the Towers before collapse. No paper is needed, in this case.

But what about thermite, which we all know Mr. Ryan wants to say, but does not? Well, there's two problems with thermite. First of all, thermite is actually less energetic by a large factor -- typically about 4 MJ / kg, perhaps there is some formulation I don't know about that approaches 10 MJ / kg, but certainly nothing close to ordinary combustibles like wood and plastics. Over the long term, thermite is actually less of a fire hazard. We cannot possibly claim thermite was present from the total heat release alone. The only way to infer the existence of thermite is to study the rate of heat release, and this isn't dependent on the fuel at all (since it is abundant), but rather the supply of oxidizer. Mr. Ryan and company do not even attempt, here or anywhere in the paper, to quantify the amount of oxygen available to the ordinary Pile fires that we know must have been there.

The other problem with thermite is that it tends to burn all at once. Since it needs no supply of oxygen, the rate of burning in a large quantity of the substance is limited only by heat transfer, which involves grain size and mixture with inert contents if any, but is pretty fast. In general, a burn rate of less than 1 cm/s is unlikely -- either the thermite will go out, or it will burn much faster, regardless of its volume. The thermite reaction is characterized by its tendency to burn completely. So, if it was thermite, why would it still be burning months afterward? And in such enormous quantities?

To summarize, even this seemingly innocent excerpt demonstrates critical errors in Mr. Ryan's thinking:
Asserted without justification, that the fire behavior was unexpected
Asserted without justification, that other scientists do not or cannot provide an explanation
Asserted without evidence, that "chemical energetic materials," meaning in this context thermites, are a better fit to the long duration and resilience of the fire, when in fact the opposite is indicated

Moving on to the next problem:

Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide released from the extremely exothermic reaction between aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC.

Here, again, we have numerous totally unsupported assertions.

The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." It is true that aluminum oxide is white, but it is not true that all white dust clouds are aluminum oxide. This is a transparent assuming the consequent logical fallacy.

There have been, of course, other analyses of the dust clouds (i.e. Lioy et al. (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html)) and these have found absolutely no unusual aluminum signature. Indeed, it is not aluminum at all, but rather titanium, lead, iron, calcium, silicon that are in high quantities, and each of these is easily traced to specific, mundane materials -- white paint in the case of the titanium, glass for the silicon.

However, even if this was not the case, Mr. Ryan would be remiss in not presenting evidence for his theory that aluminum oxide was dominant. He has not. He also, unsurprisingly, presents no evidence of the "molten metal" that supposedly accompanied these explosions. Instead, what few possible indications of molten metal he has either come from well before the collapses, as in the WTC 2 "firefall," or long after the collapses -- there is no indication of molten metal during these "explosions," or for that matter in the other literature examining the dust. Presumably the supposed thermite reaction would not create its two ingredients at totally different times!

And this leads to another problem. The focus of the paper is supposedly on persistent thermite reactions in the Pile. Why are we here treating it like an explosive? Wouldn't explosive behavior preclude much later and slower reactions? Or are these two totally different types of imaginary destructive device, in which case one is not evidence for the other at all, and thus totally superfluous to the paper? The correct answer is, none of the above; instead, Mr. Ryan is simply confused.

Regarding the "extremely high temperatures," again, Mr. Ryan asserts without proof that it can only be explained via his supposed mystery reaction. This is simply not true. The temperatures are consistent with those in underground coal fires, and was explained in this instance by the DELTA Group (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm), through a simple estimate of the energies and rates of reaction, assuming, again, only normal combustible materials. Thermite, as before, actually hurts. It burns faster, but its energy content is so much less that it actually reduces the total energy -- and it is total energy, not burning rate, that would lead to heightened temperatures weeks after the collapses.

And that's just the Introduction.

Shall I bother continuing? Actually, I think I'd like the opposition to take a crack at the next section. Find the core arguments, isolate those to a few sentences, and see if they are properly supported. I'll be glad to help you walk through it. This could be a highly productive discussion for those of you unfamiliar with science.


ETA: I am, of course, bringing these and the other glaring issues to the attention of the editors. I will not reprint any e-mails I receive, as per JREF Forum policy, but I will keep you apprised of the situation.

Interestingly, of the two editors in chief, one has been on sabbatical since September of last year (prior to the paper's submittal), and the other has apparently published creationist science (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/guelph-creationists.html) papers with affiliates of The Origin of Life Foundation. I have not yet evaluated the latter claim for accuracy, nor does it excuse or explain the poor quality of Mr. Ryan's paper, but it is an interesting coincidence.

[ref]

Speaking of Mr. Ryan, he produced this paper last month.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html)

In here he suggests the following:


The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure? Gee. It must have been spray-on nano-thermite!

In the paper he tries to come up with 10 reasons why NIST should test for nano-thermites.


In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.

Sigh.

[R.Mackey]

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure? Gee. It must have been spray-on nano-thermite!

Well, yeah. I mean, obviously the collapse should have started far away from where the impact damage and fires were, so clearly Inside Jerb! :rolleyes:

Charlatanery like this is one of the major reasons people don't always trust science. There's too many scammers practicing pseudoscience for their own personal gain. This is why it's important to confront journals -- even virtually unknown, irrelevant, plausibly unreviewed ones like we have here -- when they fall victim to this nonsense.

[RedIbis]

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

[Newtons Bit]

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

Maybe these are things that one should report when saying that Benzene means thermite (or energetic whatevers). You know, that whole providing proof that what you're saying is significant and not just blowing smoke.

[RedIbis]

Maybe these are things that one should report when saying that Benzene means thermite (or energetic whatevers). You know, that whole providing proof that what you're saying is significant and not just blowing smoke.

Who said "Benzene means thermite"? Read the paper, all of those figures are easy to find.

[ElMondoHummus]

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

What is significant about the finding of benzene?

[Disbelief]

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

The composition of the smoldering fire would probably be the answer. All of the PVC, computers, etc did not suddenly disappear with the collapse, so if a previously unburned portionof this material ignited, this would be your explanation.

[Newtons Bit]

Who said "Benzene means thermite"? Read the paper, all of those figures are easy to find.

Then what is significant about benzene?

[RedIbis]

The composition of the smoldering fire would probably be the answer. All of the PVC, computers, etc did not suddenly disappear with the collapse, so if a previously unburned portionof this material ignited, this would be your explanation.

Please check the questions I asked above and find the corresponding sourced quotes in the article for the answers. The burning of normal office contents does not account for the spikes in Benzene levels.

[Disbelief]

Please check the questions I asked above and find the corresponding sourced quotes in the article for the answers. The burning of normal office contents does not account for the spikes in Benzene levels.

Can you prove this? Who said it was strictly office contents? Did you miss the part about all of the PVC? Also, while a few computers burning occasionally may not account for it, thousands burning at once could. Why do you take the words of Jones and Ryan as gospel, while asking for reams of evidence to prove a plane struck the Pentagon? Should you not be the one painstakingly reviewing what these two have written instead of asking everyone else to comment? Finally, why have you not explained the significance of benzene?

[Grizzly Bear]

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene)

Benzene, or benzol, is an organic chemical compound and a known carcinogen with the molecular formula C6H6. It is sometimes abbreviated Ph–H. Benzene is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell and a relatively high melting point. Because it is a known carcinogen, its use as an additive in gasoline is now limited, but it is an important industrial solvent and precursor in the production of drugs, plastics, synthetic rubber, and dyes. Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil, but it is usually synthesized from other compounds present in petroleum. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon and the second [n]-annulene ([6]-annulene), a cyclic hydrocarbon with a continuous pi bond.

Plastics, dyes, rubber: all common materials inside the towers during normal operation. Most products such as plastics and other materials are made of petroleum based products... I'm not sure I understand what significance it has. Nothing I've read about it thus far seems to indicate anything suspicious

[RedIbis]

It appears no one here is interested in answering these rather simple questions:

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

[chillzero]

Maybe you'd have more luck getting those answers if you answered the question several people put to you - why are they significant?

No-one's going to spend time looking up answers for you if they aren't relevant to anything.

[RedIbis]

Maybe you'd have more luck getting those answers if you answered the question several people put to you - why are they significant?

No-one's going to spend time looking up answers for you if they aren't relevant to anything.

So you're suggesting that people don't read the article. The answers to each of those questions, including the significance of such findings is clearly stated in this rather short article.

As you can see, the standard retort is to suggest the presence of Benzene is normal and expected. This is true, but what is being ignored, is the levels of Benzene. No one seems to want to touch this.

If it's really that difficult to find in the article, I'd be happy to answer them for myself.

[chillzero]

So you're suggesting that people don't read the article.

No, I'm suggesting you help the discussion along by explaining why the levels are so important.

If it's really that difficult to find in the article, I'd be happy to answer them for myself.

Well, if you know already, why don't you identify the figures... and then explain why they are so important?

[T.A.M.]

It appears no one here is interested in answering these rather simple questions:

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

Relevance to 9/11 Conspiracies is?

Because if it is related, they are being very sheepish about it, deceptive even. If it isn't, then this is the wrong subforum for discussion about the paper...science forum would be better.

TAM:)

[mrbaracuda]

It appears no one here is interested in answering these rather simple questions:

Oh? I thought you troofers have excellent 'research skills'. What happened to them? Have you lost your magical research powers once you entered the evil realms of the JREF?

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

What are your findings so far? Since you seem to be the only one so concerned about this, it strikes me as a bit.. well, how should I say it.. strange to blabber on about it without getting your own ass up for a change here.

[Disbelief]

So you're suggesting that people don't read the article. The answers to each of those questions, including the significance of such findings is clearly stated in this rather short article.

As you can see, the standard retort is to suggest the presence of Benzene is normal and expected. This is true, but what is being ignored, is the levels of Benzene. No one seems to want to touch this.

If it's really that difficult to find in the article, I'd be happy to answer them for myself.

But, you are suggesting that people here have not read the article. I know the answers to your questions from the article, but in no way do I take them as being the final word. For example, your first question can not be answered per the article because for the average in an office fire they cited one source that was reviewing one fire. How is that average? Explain how that fire compares to what is seen at GZ.

[RedIbis]

Relevance to 9/11 Conspiracies is?

Because if it is related, they are being very sheepish about it, deceptive even. If it isn't, then this is the wrong subforum for discussion about the paper...science forum would be better.

TAM:)

I'm tending towards the former, although I wouldn't call it deceptive.

[ElMondoHummus]

Please check the questions I asked above and find the corresponding sourced quotes in the article for the answers. The burning of normal office contents does not account for the spikes in Benzene levels.

I really doubt that, Red. Benzene is the natural product of many types of combustion, including forest fires


... Forest fire smoke can be considered as a two phase mixture, consisting of both gaseous and particulate components. Over 150 chemical species have been detected in the smoke of forest fuel combustion and pyrolysis experiments, including permanent gases such as CO, CO2, NOx , SOx , Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as hydrocarbons, aldehydes, substituted furans, carboxylic acids, Benzene, Toluene, Xylene (BTX), Semi Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) (e.g. Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons); particles are also produced that usually contain Trace Elements such as Na, Mg, Ni, Cu, Pb, Fe, Mn, etc...

(source: http://www.civilprotection.gr/ecff/impacts_of_smoke.htm).

Also, firefighters are so routinely exposed to aromatic compounds such as benzene in fires that it has been studied:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12018402

That study's existence is of particular significance, as it suggests that exposure to toxic substances such as aromatic hydrocarbons is a common occurance.

More information about the presence of benzene in the environment available here:
http://www.eprf.ca/ebi/contaminants/benzene.html

[Pardalis]

Noticed how Redibis has ignored Mackey's post?

[pomeroo]

Thank you.

In terms of scholarship, this paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf) is no better than the rest of the nonsense produced by the Truth Movement. However, it is better organized, and at least legible, and as such is a much more useful case study for someone genuinely curious about the Scientific Method.

So let's begin. The first obvious problem (not counting the title or the abstract) is the following excerpt from Page 1:



Is this true? Has the fire "not been adequately explained?" This assertion is offered without any support at all. In contrast, there are numerous examples of large but slow, contained fires, i.e. Centralia (http://www.centraliaminefire.com/), both natural and accidental, that resist any effort to fight them and even hundreds of years worth of rain.

The claim of "even one accelerated by jet fuel" is a total red herring. An accelerant is actually a problem in this example, because it leads to more rapid fuel exhaustion. The conditions needed, instead, are abundant fuel, limited airflow, and relative thermal isolation. All of this is obviously present in the basements of the World Trade Center Towers, roughly 20 meters high by 64 meters on a side, and densely packed with tens of thousands of tons of combustible materials, with little access to air.

The "chemical energetic materials" (sic) are not well defined. Is crushed furniture such a material? I would venture so, since wood and paper average 25 MJ / kg of chemical energy release in ordinary fires. So, technically, there's enough deliberate vagueness here to make a semantic argument. If Mr. Ryan means "there was a lot of combustible material," then we really can't argue. We know there was. It was there in the Towers before collapse. No paper is needed, in this case.

But what about thermite, which we all know Mr. Ryan wants to say, but does not? Well, there's two problems with thermite. First of all, thermite is actually less energetic by a large factor -- typically about 4 MJ / kg, perhaps there is some formulation I don't know about that approaches 10 MJ / kg, but certainly nothing close to ordinary combustibles like wood and plastics. Over the long term, thermite is actually less of a fire hazard. We cannot possibly claim thermite was present from the total heat release alone. The only way to infer the existence of thermite is to study the rate of heat release, and this isn't dependent on the fuel at all (since it is abundant), but rather the supply of oxidizer. Mr. Ryan and company do not even attempt, here or anywhere in the paper, to quantify the amount of oxygen available to the ordinary Pile fires that we know must have been there.

The other problem with thermite is that it tends to burn all at once. Since it needs no supply of oxygen, the rate of burning in a large quantity of the substance is limited only by heat transfer, which involves grain size and mixture with inert contents if any, but is pretty fast. In general, a burn rate of less than 1 cm/s is unlikely -- either the thermite will go out, or it will burn much faster, regardless of its volume. The thermite reaction is characterized by its tendency to burn completely. So, if it was thermite, why would it still be burning months afterward? And in such enormous quantities?



To summarize, even this seemingly innocent excerpt demonstrates critical errors in Mr. Ryan's thinking:

Asserted without justification, that the fire behavior was unexpected
Asserted without justification, that other scientists do not or cannot provide an explanation
Asserted without evidence, that "chemical energetic materials," meaning in this context thermites, are a better fit to the long duration and resilience of the fire, when in fact the opposite is indicated
Moving on to the next problem:



Here, again, we have numerous totally unsupported assertions.

The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." It is true that aluminum oxide is white, but it is not true that all white dust clouds are aluminum oxide. This is a transparent assuming the consequent logical fallacy.

There have been, of course, other analyses of the dust clouds (i.e. Lioy et al. (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html)) and these have found absolutely no unusual aluminum signature. Indeed, it is not aluminum at all, but rather titanium, lead, iron, calcium, silicon that are in high quantities, and each of these is easily traced to specific, mundane materials -- white paint in the case of the titanium, glass for the silicon.

However, even if this was not the case, Mr. Ryan would be remiss in not presenting evidence for his theory that aluminum oxide was dominant. He has not. He also, unsurprisingly, presents no evidence of the "molten metal" that supposedly accompanied these explosions. Instead, what few possible indications of molten metal he has either come from well before the collapses, as in the WTC 2 "firefall," or long after the collapses -- there is no indication of molten metal during these "explosions," or for that matter in the other literature examining the dust. Presumably the supposed thermite reaction would not create its two ingredients at totally different times!

And this leads to another problem. The focus of the paper is supposedly on persistent thermite reactions in the Pile. Why are we here treating it like an explosive? Wouldn't explosive behavior preclude much later and slower reactions? Or are these two totally different types of imaginary destructive device, in which case one is not evidence for the other at all, and thus totally superfluous to the paper? The correct answer is, none of the above; instead, Mr. Ryan is simply confused.

Regarding the "extremely high temperatures," again, Mr. Ryan asserts without proof that it can only be explained via his supposed mystery reaction. This is simply not true. The temperatures are consistent with those in underground coal fires, and was explained in this instance by the DELTA Group (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm), through a simple estimate of the energies and rates of reaction, assuming, again, only normal combustible materials. Thermite, as before, actually hurts. It burns faster, but its energy content is so much less that it actually reduces the total energy -- and it is total energy, not burning rate, that would lead to heightened temperatures weeks after the collapses.

And that's just the Introduction.

Shall I bother continuing? Actually, I think I'd like the opposition to take a crack at the next section. Find the core arguments, isolate those to a few sentences, and see if they are properly supported. I'll be glad to help you walk through it. This could be a highly productive discussion for those of you unfamiliar with science.


ETA: I am, of course, bringing these and the other glaring issues to the attention of the editors. I will not reprint any e-mails I receive, as per JREF Forum policy, but I will keep you apprised of the situation.

Interestingly, of the two editors in chief, one has been on sabbatical since September of last year (prior to the paper's submittal), and the other has apparently published creationist science (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/04/guelph-creationists.html) papers with affiliates of The Origin of Life Foundation. I have not yet evaluated the latter claim for accuracy, nor does it excuse or explain the poor quality of Mr. Ryan's paper, but it is an interesting coincidence.


Nominated! A superb effort! A real scientist calmly dissects arrant charlatanry.

We understand why the cowardly fraud Kevin Ryan refuses to debate well-informed rationalists.

[ElMondoHummus]

As you can see, the standard retort is to suggest the presence of Benzene is normal and expected. This is true, but what is being ignored, is the levels of Benzene. No one seems to want to touch this.


Red, these were the largest structural fires in history, not to mention that they were exceptionally long lasting (the rubble piles fires were not extinguished until, what, December?). That the levels of benzene are also correspondingly higher is no surprise. Given the size and duration, you'd expect a large amount of benzene and other pyrolisis products to be released.

All Jones and Ryan's finding indicates is that the fires were exceptionally large and long lasting, as evidenced by their citation of supposedly higher than normal levels of combustion products. That's it. It indicates nothing interesting as far as chemical reactions nor anything suspicious as far as the presence of compounds that are not expected.

[lapman]

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?The fire found a benzene rich fuel source.

So, can you provide even one instance, that's not 9/11 related, where thermite burned for weeks?

[DGM]

:
What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?


I'm not sure this question is even valid. You would need to scale the levels to the area of the site to the square footage of the buildings (and contents) involved. No attempt to do this was made. You can't compare this to any other site because the WTC site was unusually small for the square footage of office space present.

Any comparison is a "red herring" in my opinion.

ETA: I think this aplies to anything found there.

[pomeroo]

Noticed how Redibis has ignored Mackey's post?


RedIbis's deterioration is comical to behold. He doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's alleging.

[Pardalis]

I'm telling you guys, after you respond to this benzene thingy, he's just gonna move on to another chemical and he won't even acknowledge your point.

[RedIbis]

No, I'm suggesting you help the discussion along by explaining why the levels are so important.



Well, if you know already, why don't you identify the figures... and then explain why they are so important?

This thread has become a strange example of what so often happens here. Posters, besides Mackey and others who quote specifically from the paper, are beginning to argue with me, instead of discussing the paper.

I fully admit I'm no chemical engineer, but I do have the ability to read and discuss, if even in layman's terms, the findings and hypotheses presented in the article. As well, I find Mackey's comments very helpful, and not necessarily because I agree, but I am very interested to see how such findings can be explained by means other than suggested by Ryan/Jones.

I understand the debunking strategy here. You want me to make a connection between elevated levels of VOCs and thermite. I don't make that connection. If you disagree with Ryan/Jones, please provide a hypothesis to explain the extreme spikes in levels of VOCs such as benzene.

[Stellafane]

Noticed how Redibis has ignored Mackey's post?

Yes, I've noticed that too. Red, could you care to offer any reason at all why I should give Mr. Ryan's article any credibility whatsoever after reading Mr. Mackay's post?

[chillzero]

This thread has become a strange example of what so often happens here. Posters, besides Mackey and others who quote specifically from the paper, are beginning to argue with me, instead of discussing the paper.

I agree, and I suspect there will be moderator intervention should people continue to personalise the thread (Rule 12, people).

I understand the debunking strategy here. You want me to make a connection between elevated levels of VOCs and thermite. I don't make that connection. If you disagree with Ryan/Jones, please provide a hypothesis to explain the extreme spikes in levels of VOCs such as benzene.

I never mentioned thermite. I have no preconceptions at all, nor any hidden agenda. I'm trying to help you further this discussion. You felt the levels were important enough to discuss for some reason, so why not explain that reason? You are far more likely to get answers that way.

[HyJinX]

So you're suggesting that people don't read the article. The answers to each of those questions, including the significance of such findings is clearly stated in this rather short article.

As you can see, the standard retort is to suggest the presence of Benzene is normal and expected. This is true, but what is being ignored, is the levels of Benzene. No one seems to want to touch this.

If it's really that difficult to find in the article, I'd be happy to answer them for myself.

Please do.

[RedIbis]

I agree, and I suspect there will be moderator intervention should people continue to personalise the thread (Rule 12, people).



I never mentioned thermite. I have no preconceptions at all, nor any hidden agenda. I'm trying to help you further this discussion. You felt the levels were important enough to discuss for some reason, so why not explain that reason? You are far more likely to get answers that way.

According to Ryan/Jones,
"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."

These spikes were nothing to sneeze at. According to a source quoted in the article, in office bldg fire where plastics are abundant, benzene was recorded at levels as much as 26ppm.

In Nov 01, benzene was measured at 180,000ppm. The daily avg at GZ for benzene was 18,000ppm.

Ryan/Jones present the following hypothesis based on this observation:

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events.

[DavidJames]

...but I do have the ability to read and discuss...That may be true, but it's not evidenced by this thread. Here, you've only asked questions. Others have tried to engage you in discussion, but you've refused.

[Jonnyclueless]

This thread has become a strange example of what so often happens here. Posters, besides Mackey and others who quote specifically from the paper, are beginning to argue with me, instead of discussing the paper.

I fully admit I'm no chemical engineer, but I do have the ability to read and discuss, if even in layman's terms, the findings and hypotheses presented in the article. As well, I find Mackey's comments very helpful, and not necessarily because I agree, but I am very interested to see how such findings can be explained by means other than suggested by Ryan/Jones.

I understand the debunking strategy here. You want me to make a connection between elevated levels of VOCs and thermite. I don't make that connection. If you disagree with Ryan/Jones, please provide a hypothesis to explain the extreme spikes in levels of VOCs such as benzene.

Yes, it's another example of YOU pretending no one is discussing or addressing anything while YOU ignore everyone's questions to you. And you wonder why you and people like Jones aren't taken seriously. If you kids would come out of your imaginary world and actually participate in the one everyone else here is in, then you might not have so much trouble noticing the world around you.

But please, go on continuing to ignore all the questions and posts addressed to you while you're too busy pretending they don't exist and that because people aren't giving you the answers you were hoping to guild them into providing you, that they must not have read anything.

[Myriad]

The "normal level of benzene present" in an office fire is irrelevant because after the collapses, the fires at GZ were no longer office fires, and no longer resembled office fires in any respect other than, arguably, the fuel mixture. It became a hot smoldering fire under conditions of oxygen-limited combustion and very high heat retention, similar to an underground coal fire (but with very different fuels).

High temperature and limited oxygen are exactly the conditions in which pyrolysis, the high-temperature chemical decomposition of organic materials into smaller molecules without burning, occurs. Benzene is a normal product of the pyrolysis of hydrocarbons and other organic materials (see, for instance, steam cracking -- any guesses where steam might have come from at Ground Zero?). In an office fire, by contrast, most of the benzene outgassed from plastics and other organic materials heated to high temperatures in the fire burns in the flames. So, higher than "normal office fire" levels in the fume from the underground fires should be entirely expected.

Spikes were most likely caused by the venting of spaces in which the fumes had accumulated, as a side effect of rescue, recovery, and firefighting efforts.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Pardalis]

As well, I find Mackey's comments very helpful, and not necessarily because I agree,

How do you disagree, exactly?

[chillzero]

According to Ryan/Jones,


These spikes were nothing to sneeze at. According to a source quoted in the article, in office bldg fire where plastics are abundant, benzene was recorded at levels as much as 26ppm.

In Nov 01, benzene was measured at 180,000ppm. The daily avg at GZ for benzene was 18,000ppm.

Ryan/Jones present the following hypothesis based on this observation:

And ... given the size of the buildings and the amount of .... stuff ... in them, why is that significant?

[ElMondoHummus]

I agree, and I suspect there will be moderator intervention should people continue to personalise the thread (Rule 12, people).



I never mentioned thermite. I have no preconceptions at all, nor any hidden agenda. I'm trying to help you further this discussion. You felt the levels were important enough to discuss for some reason, so why not explain that reason? You are far more likely to get answers that way.

Chillzero, I think it's necessary to understand that thermite is indeed what Ryan and Jones are trying to point at. First of all, they come out and list it:


Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of combustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite.



So they're trying to say that it takes an "energetic material" like thermite to account for the increases in the various compounds. Secondly, they keep referring to "nanocomposites" as a code word for such "energetic material", which as we know from previous works from Jones refers to "nanothermite".


Such novel nanostructured materials are known to have been the focus of intense research in the past 10 years, particularly with regard to energetic nanocomposites. Energetic nanocomposites are hybrid sol–gel materials, often made with a silica base, that have been combined with metal oxides and nano-scale aluminum powder to form superthermite materials. Much of this work has been done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories...


It is disingenuous RedIbis to suggest that thermite is not the concern here. The argument as put forth by Jones and Ryan is that the spikes in certain pyrolisis products such as benzene indicates an unusually energetic fire, one that supposedly cannot be explained by the normal combustion of office products and building material, therefore "nanocomposites" (i.e. nanothermite) are necessary to explain the spikes.

They even go out of their way to lead readers into concluding thermite, as evidence by the paragraph quoted above.

In short, while it's true that Jones and Ryan's paper appears to center around the spike in aromatic and other volatile compounds, the central argument they're building towards is that some sort of accelerant (in the form of their "energetic" i.e. "nanocomposite" compounds) must have been present. And those compounds were identified in multiple paragraphs as thermite. So yes, it is indeed accurate to discuss the linkage of benzene with the proposal of thermite. That is the crux of the paper in question.

[Horatius]

In Nov 01, benzene was measured at 180,000ppm. The daily avg at GZ for benzene was 18,000ppm.

Ryan/Jones present the following hypothesis based on this observation:



Or, there's the hypothesis that these reported values for benzene were in error.

180,000ppm? "ppm" is "Parts per million", so this apparently means that benzene was 18% of the sample. That's a lot. Even the "daily average" level quoted is 1.8%.

Let's ask the question: if these values are accurate, what results would we expect to see?

From the Materials Safety Data Sheet for benzene (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/BE/benzene.html), we find:


Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/toxicity_abbreviations.html).)
ORL-MAN LDLO 50 mg kg-1
IHL-HMN LCLO 2000 ppm/5h
ORL-RAT LD50 930 mg kg-1
IHL-MUS LC50 9980 ppm



The "IHL-HMN LCLO 2000 ppm/5h" is probably the most relevant value. Looking at the links for the abbreviations provided, we see that this is the lowest published lethal concentration for humans inhaling benzene. It's also 1/9th the amount cited as the daily average. If the daily average figure is accurate, we'd expect to see some people dying of benzene inhalation.

The "IHL-MUS LC50 9980 ppm" value is the lethal concentration that will kill 50 percent of mice inhaling benzene. It's about half the above daily average, so if it's accurate, we'd expect a lot of dead mice, far more than 50% of those in the area.

Multiply these effects by a factor of 10 for the reported "spikes", and one wonders why there weren't reports of massive deaths of New Yorkers due to benzene inhalation.

And these are only for short-term exposure to massive quantities of benzene. There are long-term chronic problems that arise from doses in the 10's to 100' of ppm, so we'd expect, at a minimum, to see some increase in those effects as well.

Or, perhaps the reported figures are a tad bit off?


There also could be other effects that explain this. Without knowing exactly where the sensors were placed, and how many there were, we also cannot tell how much benzene was actually present. Perhaps a single sensor located near a pocket of material prone to releasing benzene when ignited was overwhelmed by a purely local increase in concentration for a brief period of time. Such transient events really can't tell us much about what was going on in the pile over the long term.

To latch onto such figures without giving any consideration to their reliability and/or to how representative they are, in order to support yet another theory with questionable support, is disingenuous at best.

[chillzero]

Chillzero, I think it's necessary to understand that thermite is indeed what Ryan and Jones are trying to point at.


OK, thanks for that. I am not the tiniest bit scientific, but was interested in moving the discussion on a little.

:)

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by RedIbis http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3923717#post3923717)
As well, I find Mackey's comments very helpful, and not necessarily because I agree,

How do you disagree, exactly?

Well?

[beachnut]

According to Ryan/Jones,


These spikes were nothing to sneeze at. According to a source quoted in the article, in office bldg fire where plastics are abundant, benzene was recorded at levels as much as 26ppm.

In Nov 01, benzene was measured at 180,000ppm. The daily avg at GZ for benzene was 18,000ppm.

Ryan/Jones present the following hypothesis based on this observation: You meant to say 180,000 ppb, not ppm. NO the daily avg at GZ for benzene was not 18,000 ppm! Try again.
Ryan and Jones are full of junk!
Benzene is in gasoline, were there cars buried in the WTC? (just one source, did you know there are tons of sources of benzene at ground zero!

The real stupid part of the Jones/Ryan paper is, what does Benzene have to do with 9/11. The terrorist brought benzene to the WTC in the jet fuel and parts of the aircraft and luggage. The workers who parked their cars under the WTC, or that were buried in the WTC brought benzene to the WTC. The only idiots in the whole world who think benzene is a smoking gun are Jones/Ryan, what did they do inhale, massive amounts.

Benzene, alone is a smoking gun for the insanity of Jones and Ryan. They can't tie their shoes let alone tie benzene to a coherent plot for 9/11.

A major source of benzene exposure is tobacco smoke. (what if someone smoking was next to the sensor! OOPS)

Outdoor air contains low levels of benzene from tobacco smoke, gas stations, motor vehicle exhaust, and industrial emissions. This is true. Stay away from that sensor.

The benzene in indoor air comes from products that contain benzene such as glues, paints, furniture wax, and detergents. Wonder if the 110 floor of the WTC had glue, paints, furniture wax and detergents. 110 acres of junk in one small hole.

The air around hazardous waste sites or gas stations can contain higher levels of benzene than in other areas. Gee I wonder if the WTC was considered a hazardous waste site? OMG, are Jones and Ryan just stupid or what?

Don’t forget tire fires!
Benzene – released from styrene-butadiene rubber during smoldering combustion.

During clean up!
Benzene– released during salvage tasks performed during and after a fire; released during overhaul tasks, including pulling apart walls, ceilings and floors, and removing furniture to find and extinguish hidden fires; and released during delayed off-gassing after chemicals adsorbed onto masonry and concrete.

I wonder if there was Smoldering Combustion at the WTC? - Benzene – generated from epoxy resins, and the decomposition of polyester foam and fiberfill found in bedding and upholstery. Generated from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) used as coating on wire and cables, in electrical equipment, and in window treatments (drapes and blinds) and wall coverings.


Benzene – detected in smoke from house and municipal fires. Generated from thermal decomposition of polypropylene plastics used in housings of small kitchen, bathroom and office appliances; from polyester found in bed sheets, mattresses, carpeting and clothing; and from polyvinylchloride (PVC) used as a coating for wires and cabling, in plastic switches, wallpaper, and window treatments (drapes and blinds), and PVC plumbing.
Oh noes, was there a fire in the ground at the WTC; I wonder where the benzene came from!

Now please explain what this means. Your numbers come from this!!!
EPA maximum daily detection of benzene in air at GZ, September through November 2001 (what was the reading for the rest of the day?)


Data from routine monitoring sites in New York City collected prior to September 11 find some 24-hour average samples ranging up to approximately 4 parts per billion (ppb). In response to these urban area levels, EPA has adopted several programs to reduce benzene emissions from large urban sources such as motor vehicles. More information on these programs can be found at www.epa.gov/otaq.
Measurements of benzene from World Trade Center smoke and associated cleanup activities (vehicles and equipment) include background levels from other more routine sources such as city traffic. Nearly all of these measurements were "grab" samples, lasting but a few minutes; they are intended to quickly compare levels at the work site with those found in the surrounding streets.
To protect workers at the site, EPA attempts to identify the highest concentration levels of benzene by taking grab samples where smoke plumes have been sighted at the work site. Some of the results have been dramatically higher (up to 4000 times) than those taken in the surrounding streets. EPA has urged workers to wear respirators and other protective gear, which the Agency and others have provided. Used properly, respirators can protect workers from exposure to benzene and other contaminants at the levels we have found.
Benzene dissipates quickly and grab samples outside the work zone have been drastically lower, indicating dramatic drop-offs in levels as you move away from the debris pile. Full day air samples have also been taken at eight sites, mainly along the outer edge of the work zone. These measurements, which are comparable to levels seen prior to September 11 in New York City, confirm the rapid dissipation of benzene as you move away from the debris pile and illustrate that over a full day, average levels are much lower than many of the levels captured in the few minute grab samples. These full day air samples are all below EPA's screening level which was set to be protective against significantly increased risks of cancer and other adverse health effects. This screening level assumes continuous exposure for a year to an average concentration of 20 ppb.
It would take a few more hours to nail down where they got their data, but it was max levels, not average daily levels. As if a grab sample was in a big plume of smoke! It was!

The truth is, not with Jones and Ryan, but you have to dig deeper to figure out 9/11. Jones and Ryan are bad at research, they are twisting the work of others. It would take a few days (about 40 to 60 hours of research to understand all the benzene junk, and see how Jones et al are not saying much, just going for the, "SEE WE BE PUBLISHED" stink!

[Newtons Bit]

Or, there's the hypothesis that these reported values for benzene were in error.

180,000ppm? "ppm" is "Parts per million", so this apparently means that benzene was 18% of the sample. That's a lot. Even the "daily average" level quoted is 1.8%.

Let's ask the question: if these values are accurate, what results would we expect to see?

From the Materials Safety Data Sheet for benzene (http://msds.chem.ox.ac.uk/BE/benzene.html), we find:






The "IHL-HMN LCLO 2000 ppm/5h" is probably the most relevant value. Looking at the links for the abbreviations provided, we see that this is the lowest published lethal concentration for humans inhaling benzene. It's also 1/9th the amount cited as the daily average. If the daily average figure is accurate, we'd expect to see some people dying of benzene inhalation.

The "IHL-MUS LC50 9980 ppm" value is the lethal concentration that will kill 50 percent of mice inhaling benzene. It's about half the above daily average, so if it's accurate, we'd expect a lot of dead mice, far more than 50% of those in the area.

Multiply these effects by a factor of 10 for the reported "spikes", and one wonders why there weren't reports of massive deaths of New Yorkers due to benzene inhalation.

And these are only for short-term exposure to massive quantities of benzene. There are long-term chronic problems that arise from doses in the 10's to 100' of ppm, so we'd expect, at a minimum, to see some increase in those effects as well.

Or, perhaps the reported figures are a tad bit off?


There also could be other effects that explain this. Without knowing exactly where the sensors were placed, and how many there were, we also cannot tell how much benzene was actually present. Perhaps a single sensor located near a pocket of material prone to releasing benzene when ignited was overwhelmed by a purely local increase in concentration for a brief period of time. Such transient events really can't tell us much about what was going on in the pile over the long term.

To latch onto such figures without giving any consideration to their reliability and/or to how representative they are, in order to support yet another theory with questionable support, is disingenuous at best.

I saw the 180,000ppm and call BS as well. That 18%. Nothing could live in that. Though it would probably be a very pleasant smelling death (benzene used to be used in perfumes as I recall).

Was this sample taken directly over a pit of burning fuel or something?

[jaydeehess]

In the 1980's I was on a weather station in the high arctic. One of our weekly taks was to drive accross the sea ice or tundra about 2 miles upwind from the station and collect air samples. To accomplish this we had to turn off the Bombardier engine, set up the collection station on the ice and then everyone except the person opening the collection valve had to walk 100 feet downwind. The person opening the collection valve then held his breath and while standing downwind turned the stopcock and joined us. After a couple of minutes that one person would again go up and turn the stopcock off. then we would gather up everything and leave.

So, where did the benzene spikes come from?
How about from a piece of heavy equipment that passed upwind of the collection site? How about the underground fires that moved through the pile over the months hitting a spot where several cars were crushed and had up to then not been involved in the fires? How about a cutting torch being used to sever heavy, insulated electrical cables?

Now has RI explained just what significance could be attributed to higher than background levels of benzene? That is if the levels recorded are in fact higher than normal background level excursions.

[jaydeehess]

I saw the 180,000ppm and call BS as well. That 18%. Nothing could live in that. Though it would probably be a very pleasant smelling death (benzene used to be used in perfumes as I recall).

Was this sample taken directly over a pit of burning fuel or something?

Just a thought.
Perhaps its supposed to be 180,000 ppb, (parts per billion). That would reduce the 18% to 0.018% and even a 10 fold spike would only be 0.18%.

If this report was typed up by transcription from a voice recording the transcriber may well have heard 'million' when the speaker said 'billion'.

[Horatius]

I saw the 180,000ppm and call BS as well. That 18%. Nothing could live in that. Though it would probably be a very pleasant smelling death (benzene used to be used in perfumes as I recall).

Was this sample taken directly over a pit of burning fuel or something?

So, where did the benzene spikes come from?
How about from a piece of heavy equipment that passed upwind of the collection site? How about the underground fires that moved through the pile over the months hitting a spot where several cars were crushed and had up to then not been involved in the fires? How about a cutting torch being used to sever heavy, insulated electrical cables?

Now has RI explained just what significance could be attributed to higher than background levels of benzene? That is if the levels recorded are in fact higher than normal background level excursions.



Exactly right. They've staked a large part of their theory on these readings, without giving any consideration to how real, accurate or representative they might be. If this is such a key piece of evidence, it is absolutely essential that they confirm the validity of these numbers.

So far, they don't seem to have done any such thing, or even seem to have asked themselves these questions. Like typical CTists, they've latched onto these values simply because they can be used to support their theories, reasonableness be damned!

There are so many possible sources of error in these numbers, from simple typos, to sensor faults, to operator error, and to contamination from other sources, we can't simply assume they are accurate.

[Horatius]

Just a thought.
Perhaps its supposed to be 180,000 ppb, (parts per billion). That would reduce the 18% to 0.018% and even a 10 fold spike would only be 0.18%.

If this report was typed up by transcription from a voice recording the transcriber may well have heard 'million' when the speaker said 'billion'.



Quite possible, although most benzene values I've seen for environmental levels is ppm, not ppb. *

It's also interesting to note that their "spikes" are exactly 10x the daily average - could someone have typed an extra zero? Maybe just possibly? ;)


ETA: Okay, it looks like the 26 ppm that RI quoted as typical would be 0.0026%, so 0.018% would be about 7 times higher concentration - more reasonable that what was reported. So a ppm/ppb confusion might explain it.

[Pardalis]

As well, I find Mackey's comments very helpful,

After he took the time to answer in a lenghty reply (quite frankly I don't understand why people bother, I guess people of science are like that: incorrigibly honest, curious and methodical), all you can come up with is that it's "useful"? Useful how?

and not necessarily because I agreeAgain, how do you disagree with his position?

The floor is yours.

[Horatius]

Quite possible, although most benzene values I've seen for environmental levels is ppm, not ppb. *

It's also interesting to note that their "spikes" are exactly 10x the daily average - could someone have typed an extra zero? Maybe just possibly? ;)


ETA: Okay, it looks like the 26 ppm that RI quoted as typical would be 0.0026%, so 0.018% would be about 7 times higher concentration - more reasonable that what was reported. So a ppm/ppb confusion might explain it.



And the 18,000 daily average, if it was ppb rather than ppm, would be 0.0018%, which is of the same order of magnitude as the quoted value 26 ppm, or 0.0026%. So, we'd have levels of benzene about what we'd expect, with occasional spikes to about 5-10X normal.

Not so much of a smoking gun, that. Is there any way to find out for sure if the reported values ore intended to be ppm or ppb?

[RedIbis]

CORRECTION: It is ppb, not as I stated earlier ppm.

[Horatius]

CORRECTION: It is ppb, not as I stated earlier ppm.



Well, there you go. Nothing unusual, so what's the hoopla all about?



ETA: Okay, so the 26 ppm value is also listed as ppb in the article, but again, is that accurate? I'll look into it.

[16.5]

I note that Jones cites his silly internet "Journal" twice, and his pay to publish nonsense once.

That is real scholarship, correct?

Anyhow, I'm just waiting for a truther to take up Mackey's invitation.

[beachnut]

CORRECTION: It is ppb, not as I stated earlier ppm.
There are some good post that put your Jones/Ryan paper in the stupid column!

The samples you cite were grab samples, and right at the North Tower. Samples lasting a few minutes. Darn.

So we have a sample taken in the plume of yucky stuff, and it is high. It would be. So much for this paper of junk!


Do you understand the Jones brothers are using daily Maximums to miss lead you? Did you read the paper closely?

[jaydeehess]

CORRECTION: It is ppb, not as I stated earlier ppm.

snaps for RI for his honesty on this.

I have to add though that reading it elicited an expression of mirth for which I could not deny outlet.

[jaydeehess]

Quick google search bolds mine
http://www.aip.com.au/industry/fact_benzene.htm

Medical aspects

Benzene concentrations in the atmosphere can range from one part per billion (1 ppb) in natural bush land to 25 ppb at a service station. There is no evidence of any adverse effects on human health from typical atmospheric levels of benzene.

Only in cases where there have been frequent exposures in industrial situations to concentrations in excess of 1000 times greater than that typically found at a service station over a period of years, have adverse health effects - specifically, an increase in the incidence of myeloid leukemia - been associated with benzene. The current work place exposure limit in Australia is 10,000 ppb 8 hour Time Weighted Average (TWA). This limit is related to employee work place exposure. The general public are unlikely to be exposed to annual average levels of benzene approaching one thousandth of the occupational limits.

So 25 ppb in an area where a little gas may be spilled and near the vent for the underground tanks. Now if the gas tanks of one hundred vehicles get crushed what would that do to the level of benzene in the air nearby? What would those levels be if a few hours of little or no wind were to occur? What would be the effect on the levels of benzene of a large number of heavy deisel engines running day and night in the area? What of the benzene that would be 'cooked off' by heating upholsetry, PVC piping, tires, and all plastic objects in the rubble pile?

These are questions that Jones et al MUST answer BEFORE going off and trying to conclude some nefarious source for the elevated levels of benzene at GZ.

So far all Jones has done is reiterate the report and draw completely unsubstantiated conclusions from it.

I read a book many years ago, on the Tunguska explosion. It was a very good description of the global and local effects of the explosion, of the expedition later to the region and of whta was found there. Then in the last chapter the author drew the conclusion that it was the result of the nuclear explosion of an extra terrestrial craft that was experiencing an emergency and trying to land in that remote area of Siberia. The 'evidence' for such a conclusion was the slightly higher back ground level of radiation near the place determined to be directly under the explosion. No attempt was made to determine if there was any uranium deposits in that area.
That is the same giant leap of logic that Jones uses here.

[Pardalis]

Bush land? There you go, conspiracy!

[Horatius]

Well, there you go. Nothing unusual, so what's the hoopla all about?



ETA: Okay, so the 26 ppm value is also listed as ppb in the article, but again, is that accurate? I'll look into it.



From what I've found, there's not much on the concentration of benzene expected in a fire. The value reported seems accurate from the cited paper, but that's only one fire. Again, before staking everything on one number, I'd want to have some assurance it was typical.

[Pardalis]

These are questions that Jones et al MUST answer BEFORE going off and trying to conclude some nefarious source for the elevated levels of benzene at GZ.

Especially months after the clean up.

[jaydeehess]

Bush land? There you go, conspiracy!

lol I missed that ironic Aussie term. Fact is, in my area of the N.American boreal forest we refer to forested areas as 'the bush' as well.

[jaydeehess]

Especially months after the clean up.

Well I try not to concentrate too much on the absolutly ridiculous notion that there could be a way to plant enough thermite to sustain a months long burn. People with minds that can accept such a senario as plausible have my pity. It must be difficult for them to separate fiction, such as in the movies, from reality.

[Pardalis]

Well I try not to concentrate too much on the absolutly ridiculous notion that there could be a way to plant enough thermite to sustain a months long burn.

You'll note also that the paper speaks of "toxic spikes" in february of 2002.

ETA: I just thought of something. Maybe it was nanothermite fallout! :eek:

[DGM]

Are "truthers" really highlighting a "paper" that shows high levels of a hydrocarbons (benzine or others) on a site that housed a parking garage and hundreds of tons of plastics? This was a very highly concentrated area (stuff wise :)) shouldn't the levels naturally be high in such an event? (I know silly logical me)

[Mangoose]

A proper academic paper should support its claims with adequate references. I just went through the interesting process of fact-checking just one of its claims and found that there is absolutely no verifiable reference for it.

In the introduction, Ryan et al. wrote:

Photographs and witness testimony evidencing molten metal and explosions accompanied by white dust clouds (Jones 2006; Meyerowitz 2006; PBS 2002).


I should first note that this sentence is pretty vague; it does not, for instance, indicate WHEN and WHERE molten metal, explosions, and white dust clouds were seen -- was it an hour, a day, a week, two weeks, a month after the destruction of the towers? Were these seen deep in the pile or at the surface? As we shall see, the references pertain to a combination of situations and even the collapse of the towers themselves, even though this evidence is supposed to indicate "the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ", so the reader would naturally expect that these observations pertain to post-collapse events in the rubble pile. So if we take the last reference first, we see that PBS 2002 is a source for the reference to "molten metal":

RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. I did some quick numbers with Gary Panariello, an engineer from Thornton-Tomasetti, to try and determine what the load on WTC 6 was and how much of the lateral system of the building the contractor could take down. There were a lot of judgment calls; people had immediate needs and needed immediate responses.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html


Technically, Garlock does not refer to molten metal, but let's excuse that for a moment. It is clear that Garlock is referring to the situation deep in the pile, some unspecified time after 9/11. He does not refer to explosions and white dust clouds.

What about Meyerowitz 2006? The reference to this book is explained in the bibliography:

Meyerowitz J (2006) Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud


So here they are citing an event that was at the surface of the pile, almost two months after 9/11, that had a "white cloud" but no explosions or molten metal. This reference is supposed to support the claim that there were "explosions accompanied by white dust clouds" but this white cloud was not accompanying an explosion. But since it was cited as a reference after this claim, it somehow must have been construed as relevant.

That leaves Jones 2006 and by a process of elimination, that must be the source for the claim of "explosions accompanied by white dust clouds". Well, unfortunately, Ryan et al. do not provide a proper page number, so the reader would have to slog through the paper to discover the statement on p. 24:

For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom…something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf


Jones claims here that this was uttered by a FOX reporter "at the start of the collapse of the South Tower". So to show that there were energetic chemical reactions going on in the RUBBLE PILE, Ryan et al. cites one report of something molten deep in the pile, one report of white smoke on the surface on a different occasion, and an explosion and white smoke allegedly reported before the rubble pile even existed. This is a deceptive citing of sources because it is the reference to the "explosion accompanied with white smoke clouds" that is supposed to support the claim of "energetic", i.e. explosive, chemical reactions "in the rubble at GZ", and yet the claimed report of this refers to a situation before the collapse and before there was any "rubble at GZ".

Now when you cite references in an academic journal article, it is considered best to use primary sources and not an intermediary source. Here Ryan et al. cite Jones (2006) for a statement that Jones himself cites from another source. Why not cite that original source? Well, I tried to track down the source that Jones (2006) cited: De Grand Pre (2002). In the references of Jones (2006), we find out the publication being quoted there:

De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). “Many Questions Still Remain About Trade Center Attack,” American Free Press, February 3, 2002, available at: http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html


American Free Press, that's that ultra-right-wing, Holocaust-denial publication. Probably not something you'd want to put in the references of a serious academic article. So Ryan et al. cite a "safe" intermediary source like Jones (2006). But how good is De Grand Pre (2002) as a source? I click on that link, and :( I get an error message saying, "Article Not Found". A person reading the Environmentalist article wanting to verify Ryan et al.'s information would thus reach a dead end and not find the ultimate source of the information. Such a person might access the AFP site directly to find the missing article, and discover such curiosities about the Jewish lobby preventing Obama from becoming President and the Golem from the Jewish Talmud coming to life as Israel's nuclear stockpile that holds the world hostage (all on the current homepage of AFP). But luckily, a resourceful person might know that an archived copy of the AFP article is still accessible via the Wayback Machine, and here is the original statement quoted by Jones 2006:

Especially revealing is a Fox 5 News tape depicting the sudden implosion of the two towers, the first of which took place at 10 a.m.

The crucial segment is from 9:58 a.m. to 10:03 a.m. At 10 a.m., the screen goes blank and, a few seconds later, a great white cloud of smoke and dust rises from the base of the tower.

The news anchor exclaims: �There is an explosion at the base of the building . . . white smoke from the bottom . . . something has happened at the base of the building . . . then, another explosion. Another building in the WTC complex [has blown up] . . .�

http://web.archive.org/web/20020613025541/http://www.americanfreepress.net/02_03_02/Trade_Center_Attack/trade_center_attack.html


The rest of the "article", more of an email received by the website, is devoted to a discussion of how big and burley the pilots were on the four flights and how they would never have let the hijackers take over the flights. THAT is what is indirectly cited as a source in the Ryan et al. academic journal article.

What Ryan et al. definitely DO NOT do is check the original source tape of FOX 5 News to verify that what De Grand 2002 reports is an accurate transcript of what was actually said. For instance, are the ellipses used to indicate omitted material or are they used to indicate pauses? (Notice that Jones 2006 omits one of the ellipses.) Jones 2006 also suggests that this was uttered "at the start of the collapse" whereas De Grand 2002 is less clear ("from 9:58 to 10:03 a.m."). Also Jones 2006 omits De Grand's description of the footage, where he refers to "a great white cloud of smoke and dust ris[ing] from the base of the tower". Reading Jones 2006 alone, a reader would imagine that at the very start of the collapse itself, an anchor viewing footage from the scene describes an explosion at the very base of the tower, followed by white smoke -- far away from the impact zone two-thirds of the way up the tower. But what De Grand describes sounds a lot like he is referring to the huge plume of dust from the collapse itself rising up rapidly from the base of the east face of the North Tower (not the collapsing South Tower) after the South Tower had collapsed. There is one piece of footage in particular from a helicopter where the South Tower is blocked by the North Tower, and it had fooled scores of troothers in 2002 and 2003 (the so-called "Clancy footage") in supposedly depicting a huge explosion at ground level in WTC 3 prior to the collapse of the South Tower. Other videos taken from the north also have the South Tower partially blocked by the North Tower, and the collapse is not readily obvious -- particularly to a reporter who is only describing what he or she has just seen. The ABC footage with Peter Jennings is a good example of a person being completely confused about what had just happened from such a vantage point. Jones (2006) and Ryan et al. (2008) undertook no such effort to examine the original video to assess what was being talked about in the newscast, nor even consider the possibility that what the reporter originally described was the post-collapse plume of dust bearing up alongside the base of the east side of the North Tower. Instead, De Grand is indirectly cited in order to support a statement about violent chemical reactions IN THE RUBBLE PILE long afterward.

Well, thanks to archive.org's new September 11 Television Archive, it is now possible to get the original video of FOX 5 News' broadcast. I wrote the above paragraph without even viewing it as of yet, but I did remember that I had downloaded a full-resolution copy of the video which was labeled fox5200109110954-1036/V08546-12.mpg. You can view a streamed copy of the same video at http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive. So what do we find? At 9:59 the Pentagon coverage is cut in with footage from New York AFTER THE SOUTH TOWER HAD COLLAPSED, with precisely the same helicopter view that I had expected. And this is what the news anchor, viewing the same footage from afar, actually said:

Back now in New York City, and it appears that something else has occurred, we're not quite sure what, but apparently the level of the smoke, this is a slightly different area of the World Trade Center? Okay, it is now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, perhaps indicating some sort of explosion or fire there. Of course, what has happened of course may be all the systems compromised in the building. You may be getting an explosion from that, we do not know what has happened, but obviously something has happened at the base of the building, setting off another round of major smoke and damage."


And this is what was on the screen while the anchor was saying this:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5432/capturekz7.jpg

THAT is what this humble news anchor in her moment of confusion and dissonance, tried to make sense of. She was NOT a reporter at the scene, she was NOT describing smoke at the base of the South Tower "at the start of the collapse of the South Tower", as Jones (2006) falsely claimed. Nor did she refer to "white" smoke (something added by De Grand that made its way into Ryan et al. 2008), nor did she refer to multiple explosions as De Grand has it, nor was she even reporting an explosion (it was only her guess of what could have caused the "smoke"). She was referring to nothing else than the dust cloud from the collapse of the tower. And her statement gives no testimony whatsoever to "energetic chemical reactions" in the debris pile at Ground Zero. There is also no excuse for Ryan et al. to not trace the quote (which De Grand had clearly paraphrased and simplified) to its original source, as the September 11 Television Archive has been online since the summer of 2006 and was hardly unknown to the troother community.

So in just one short sentence of the paper, I was able to find numerable distortions, faulty citation of sources, and outright dubious claims.

[DGM]

Mangoose:

Great post!!!

I don't know how you can muster the patience to compose a logical response to total illogical thought. Personally my patience for their BS has worn thin.

Thanks for the informative response ( to the non-informed)

[HyJinX]

Ummmmm...DAMN Mangoose. That's impressive. It truly shows the deception and lack of character on the part of Ryan et al.

Thank you.

ETA: Nominated

[16.5]

Gee, ya think old Red is regreting his posting this thread in the first place?

Still waiting for a response to Mackey's invitation.

[Jonnyclueless]

You'll note also that the paper speaks of "toxic spikes" in february of 2002.

ETA: I just thought of something. Maybe it was nanothermite fallout! :eek:

Or leftover exhaust from Santa's sled the month before?

[Pardalis]

Great post Mangoose. This is some piece of investigating.

Shame on you Jones.

[mrbaracuda]

Thank you Mangoose! Very nice post. :)

[Pardalis]

This is the kind of research truthers should be doing.

Any bets on how RedIbis is going to spin this around and ignore?

"Debunk alert", another way of saying "Please do my research for me".

[Kent1]

Nice work on that Fox 5 news footage. :)
Typical Jones. :mad:
I'm coming here less and less. I think the truth movement is falling apart.
I don't see Truthers for 9/11 having much more weight than Lumberjacks for Bigfoot anymore.
Jones, Ryan etc have so little credibility. Anything of value has to some from an outside source.

[mrbaracuda]

This is the kind of research truthers should be doing.

Any bets on how RedIbis is going to spin this around and ignore?

"Debunk alert", another way of saying "Please do my research for me".

More like 'incompetence movement', RIGHT GUYZ? ;)

[Mangoose]

Where did Red, roundhead, and TheLoneBedouin go? :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

Where did Red, roundhead, and TheLoneBedouin go? :rolleyes:
1. They had to go back and get instructions
2. Rob's computers suffered idiocy overload and tripped out.

[ElMondoHummus]

OK, thanks for that. I am not the tiniest bit scientific, but was interested in moving the discussion on a little.

:)

Oh, yes, of course, absolutely. I just wanted to clarify that the authors were indeed making a link between the presence of various volatile aromatics and other organic compounds with thermite. A light reading of the paper could cause one to just breeze by that fact.

I certainly agree with your sentiment in moving the conversation along a bit. Sometimes these threads can get hung up on the most minute points. I often end up contributing to that myself at times. :(

[WildCat]

This I fully admit I'm no chemical engineer, but I do have the ability to read and discuss, if even in layman's terms, the findings and hypotheses presented in the article.
And when do you intend to do that?

[T.A.M.]

Well done Mangoose.

Can't say I am surprised. I automatically assume any paper produced by the truthers and their "scientist" kin, is full of mistruths, distortions, and...lies.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

Gee, ya think old Red is regreting his posting this thread in the first place?Nope. I think he views people here as lost souls lacking the insight and advanced perceptions of those like himself. Responses here roll off him like water off a ducks back only with less of an impact.
Still waiting for a response to Mackey's invitation.If it comes, it will be a one or two line dismissive comment, without substance. Either that or a question.

[Sizzler]

Has anyone discovered why this article was published?

Is it a sham journal?

Was it not peer-reviewed?

Did they pay money to get it published?

Any answers yet?

Thanks in advance to those searching for such answers.

[WildCat]

Has anyone discovered why this article was published?
Jones et al paid $3,000 to have it published.

Is it a sham journal?
Looks like they have very lax standards at the very least.

Was it not peer-reviewed?
Doesn't look like it.

Did they pay money to get it published?
Yes, $3,000.

Any answers yet?
Yes, 9/11 was not an inside job. It was in fact planned and executed by al Qaeda.

Thanks in advance to those searching for such answers.
You're very welcome.

[R.Mackey]

So... nobody's taken issue with my explanation of why the paper is nonsense? Heck, that was easy.

Also, my compliments to Mangoose for his thorough exposure of the poor sourcing found in the paper. This is par for the course. I didn't want to get into it -- instead, I focused on the reasoning itself. Even if you accept the data that Mr. Ryan uses in this paper, you still wind up with one huge assuming the consequent. But as he showed, the data is suspect as well.

I also got a huge chuckle out of the "180,000 ppm" mistake. Yes, I accept it was an honest mistake, but really, it should have been obvious. Air containing 180,000 ppm benzene would be about 34% benzene by mass, and would have approximately 30 times as much benzene as the oxygen required to combust it. The only way this can happen is if the benzene is boiled, and rather than sampling air, we are really sticking our instruments into an expanding cloud of benzene vapor. Which, by the way, is incredibly flammable, and would have a fuel-to-oxygen ratio of about 30:1. In other words, about the worst backdraft situation I've ever heard of.

So, until the error (that it was "ppb" instead of "ppm") was detected, we all should have marvelled at the hardiness of researchers willing to stand within this fearsome, enormous cloud of superheated benzene, clearly willing to don oxygen rebreathers and asbestos coveralls, not to mention brave imminent fuel-air explosions, all in the name of science. And with that said, we should remain in awe of their powers of understatement, concluding that the benzene concentration was merely "high." :D


Finally, the editors of The Environmentalist wrote me back already. They did not dispute my concerns at all. Their response, "write us your concerns as a new article."

This is Bentham all over again. I'm beginning to think they work on commission.

This makes me particularly angry. This isn't just Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan trying to trick people anymore -- although that is what this paper is, a trick, as Myriad explained to perfection. Now it's crossed over into the realm of scientific ethics. Not if I can help it.

[Dave Rogers]

There's one more missing link in Ryan and Jones's chain of reasoning that I don't think has been raised here. They're claiming, in effect, that brief, energetic reactions within the rubble pile resulted in an increase in the release of aromatic chemicals such as benzene. Taking the most simplistic possible view, one might reason that if heat leads to benzene liberation, more heat liberates more benzene. However, in this case we're talking about temperature spikes up to 2500ºC, and this is far above the temperatures needed for cracking benzene into short chain alkenes. One might expect, therefore, that a thermite reaction in the rubble pile would reduce, not increase, the levels of benzene emission, with a corresponding increase in methane, ethene and propene levels. Have the authors considered this, or have they just taken an over-simplistic line of reasoning and assumed it to be correct?

I'd have been very interested to hear Apollo20's opinion on this one. Do we have any more chemists around here?

Dave

[sdemetri]

R Mackey, regarding an earlier post

[sdemetri]

R Mackey, regarding an earlier post …

In fact, the un-extinguishable fires have NOT been adequately explained. Not in any study by NIST, FEMA, USGS, RJ Lee, Worcester Polytech, any other study, that I am aware of, that has been officially commissioned or carried out. NIST denies that there even were fires.

Comparing the WTC fires to the Centralia underground fire is completely irrelevant as the two have nothing in common, or any connections whatsoever. That Centralia took place doesn’t explain, adequately or not, what generated the WTC fires, or sustained them. The Centralia fire has a natural fuel source, the WTC fires had an undetermined fuel source. That the official studies have not addressed the fires at the WTC piles is, in fact, very relevant to the statement by Ryan that they “have not been adequately explained…” If they have been adequately explained, cite your documentation. A casual reference to a known underground fire proves absolutely nothing.

This paper assumes there is much plastic, polyvinyl chloride, computer housings, office materials in the rubble. It is the release of particulate matter, and the documentation that shows typical release patterns of PM in large structural fires, as well as the concentrations of specific compounds that EPA and Cahill reported, that are not adequately explained by what is known about large structural fires.

The paper states: “The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried with the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates, violent, shortlived, 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 VOC’s seen on those dates.”

Cahill attempts to discuss the aberrant findings, but with hypotheses that don’t seem very likely. Many of the aberrant findings, “very fine aerosols typical of combustion temperatures far higher than [expected in] the WTC collapses piles… some elements abundantly and others hardly at all, despite similar abundances in the collapse dust…organic species in the very fine mode that would not survive high temperatures…” which organic species included sulphur and sulphur-based compounds and fine particles of chemically bound silicon, in their abundance are not easily explained by what is typical of large structural fires. Cahill attempted to ditch the “high temperature” explanation in favor of volatized metals due to high concentrations of chlorine, not a likely scenario. High temperatures do easily explain volatized metals, and is corroborated by the USGS, RJ Lee, and Worcester Polytech findings of extreme temperatures. They likewise found evidence of extreme temperatures and volatized metals. Sulphur and sulphur-based compounds, silicon, and other volatized metals are consistent with nanocomposite energetic materials, but not easily explained in their concentrations and release patterns by typical structural fires. Cahill said in relation to some of the PM, “these particles simply should not be there…”

You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Source: nist factsheets/faqs_8_2006 (August 2006)

So, not “of course, gypsum or concrete…” white smoke… consistent with a thermite/thermate incendiary device. Your dismissal of what NIST calls “white smoke” generated by an “unusual” and “bright flame,” as gypsum or concrete is unsubstantiated. Thermate burns with a very bright flame and gives off a plume of white smoke consisting of aluminum oxide, which is consistent with the flame and white plume NIST comments on.

Ryan doesn’t make a case for “persistent thermite reactions.” The very quick, energetic exothermic reaction is over very rapidly. In the event an excess was used to sever connections in the perimeter and core columns, which is entirely consistent with the lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated, it is highly plausible pockets of un-ignited thermite/thermate existed in the pile. At any rate, there is sufficient cause to investigate incendiaries.

None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments.

BTW, concerning benzene levels:
The general equation is: micrograms/m3 = (ppbv)(12.19)(MW) / (273.15 + oC) where: micrograms/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (i.e., micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air) MW = molecular weight of the gaseous pollutant ppbv = parts per billion by volume (i.e., volume of gaseous pollutant per billion volumes of ambient air) oC = degrees Centigrade (Source: as a new commentor, not allowed to cite the source...)
MW of benzene is 78.1 g/mol

82 micrograms/m3 = ~26 ppb at 20 degrees C

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation. Especially in light of the EPA’s failure to warn workers and others of the environmental dangers to working in the area at the time, and in light of the sicknesses and deaths that are occurring in first responders.

And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper.

[Dave Rogers]

In the event an excess was used to sever connections in the perimeter and core columns, which is entirely consistent with the lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated, it is highly plausible pockets of un-ignited thermite/thermate existed in the pile.

Just taking one minor point here, there is no evidence of any unexpected "lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated". Calculations of the collapse time based on reasonable values for structural resistance (as opposed to calculations by Gordon Ross and Kenneth Kuttler, which respectively use erroneous reasoning and physically absurd values for structural resistance) give excellent agreement with the observed collapse times. For a good example from someone who seriously doubts the generally accepted sequence of events on 9-11, see the work of Gregory Urich on this forum, work which Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones chose not to publish in their journal.

Dave

[RedIbis]

So... nobody's taken issue with my explanation of why the paper is nonsense? Heck, that was easy.

Also, my compliments to Mangoose for his thorough exposure of the poor sourcing found in the paper. This is par for the course. I didn't want to get into it -- instead, I focused on the reasoning itself. Even if you accept the data that Mr. Ryan uses in this paper, you still wind up with one huge assuming the consequent. But as he showed, the data is suspect as well.

I also got a huge chuckle out of the "180,000 ppm" mistake. Yes, I accept it was an honest mistake, but really, it should have been obvious. Air containing 180,000 ppm benzene would be about 34% benzene by mass, and would have approximately 30 times as much benzene as the oxygen required to combust it. The only way this can happen is if the benzene is boiled, and rather than sampling air, we are really sticking our instruments into an expanding cloud of benzene vapor. Which, by the way, is incredibly flammable, and would have a fuel-to-oxygen ratio of about 30:1. In other words, about the worst backdraft situation I've ever heard of.

So, until the error (that it was "ppb" instead of "ppm") was detected, we all should have marvelled at the hardiness of researchers willing to stand within this fearsome, enormous cloud of superheated benzene, clearly willing to don oxygen rebreathers and asbestos coveralls, not to mention brave imminent fuel-air explosions, all in the name of science. And with that said, we should remain in awe of their powers of understatement, concluding that the benzene concentration was merely "high." :D


Finally, the editors of The Environmentalist wrote me back already. They did not dispute my concerns at all. Their response, "write us your concerns as a new article."

This is Bentham all over again. I'm beginning to think they work on commission.

This makes me particularly angry. This isn't just Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan trying to trick people anymore -- although that is what this paper is, a trick, as Myriad explained to perfection. Now it's crossed over into the realm of scientific ethics. Not if I can help it.

The fact that you got such a huge chuckle from an obvious mistake is telling. Anyone could have checked the article and noticed that I was wrong and Ryan/Jones had it correct.

sdemetri: well done, you said it much better than I ever could.

[RedIbis]

None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments.



Welcome to the jref 9/11 forum.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

There's one more missing link in Ryan and Jones's chain of reasoning that I don't think has been raised here. They're claiming, in effect, that brief, energetic reactions within the rubble pile resulted in an increase in the release of aromatic chemicals such as benzene. Taking the most simplistic possible view, one might reason that if heat leads to benzene liberation, more heat liberates more benzene. However, in this case we're talking about temperature spikes up to 2500ºC, and this is far above the temperatures needed for cracking benzene into short chain alkenes. One might expect, therefore, that a thermite reaction in the rubble pile would reduce, not increase, the levels of benzene emission, with a corresponding increase in methane, ethene and propene levels. Have the authors considered this, or have they just taken an over-simplistic line of reasoning and assumed it to be correct?

I'd have been very interested to hear Apollo20's opinion on this one. Do we have any more chemists around here?

Dave

As I understand it the Benzene cracking is environmentally dependent, so it depends on the environment, if there is a suitable substance for the carbon to form other compounds than benzene it will form short chain molecules, however if those substances are lacking then the benzene can reform.

The proposal of Ryan and Jones is a low oxygen environment where carbon is broken from its bonds and naturally reforms the benzene ring.
That is similar to the manufacture of carbon nano tubes from acetylene gas in a low oxygen oven with iron present, anyone who has seen the black carbon soot from a cutting torch is familiar with the process.

That is also why acetylene is so high these days, it was dirt cheap before the discovery of carbon nano fibers.

[sdemetri]

It is pretty easy to take stills from the video of the North Tower, establish a point on the communications tower and on the roof line and plot a curve of their acceleration into the rest of the building, a presumably intact building below the damage zone. The pixels in the still frames make for a very accurate way to measure the drop as they can be converted to feet relatively easily. As the frames of video are captured at regular intervals, the drop verses time makes for a very accurate curve.

The North Tower communications tower and roof line accelerated into the lower building. There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.

[SDC]

Sdemetri wrote: "None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments."

OK, conduct your investigation. Of course, the burden of proof is on you. Good luck.

[Dave Rogers]

The North Tower communications tower and roof line accelerated into the lower building. There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow from basic Newtonian mechanics. There is a force acting downwards on the upper block of mass M, equal to MG, due to gravity. In a chaotic collapse, as seen on 9-11, the work done in breaking columns will be roughly continuous with distance fallen, rather than discontinuous in an idealised pancake collapse where each floor collapses in turn. The energy absorbed by the collapse of the support columns therefore exerts an effective upward force, which we can call F1, which is equal to the work done in breaking columns per unit distance and may be assumed to be slowly varying with height. There is another principal component, which is the retardation of the upper block due to momentum transfer to the collapsed material below it, which we can call F2. This will also vary slowly with height. If MG > (F1+F2), the upper block will accelerate smoothly downwards (as seen in all the videos) with an acceleration equal to G-(F1+F2)/M. If MG < (F1+F2), collapse cannot propagate. Therefore under no circumstances would any deceleration of the upper block be expected; the downward motion will either accelerate smoothly, or will not occur at all.

Dave

[HyJinX]

Hey Red...any comment on Mangoose's post (#139)?

[Drudgewire]

Sdemetri wrote: "None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments."

OK, conduct your investigation. Of course, the burden of proof is on you. Good luck.


Oh come on, how dare you not treat imaginary/oft debunked nonsense with the same reverence you give to legitimate science. Jerk! :mad:

[RedIbis]

Hey Red...any comment on Mangoose's post (#139)?

Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

[funk de fino]

It is pretty easy to take stills from the video of the North Tower, establish a point on the communications tower and on the roof line and plot a curve of their acceleration into the rest of the building, a presumably intact building below the damage zone. The pixels in the still frames make for a very accurate way to measure the drop as they can be converted to feet relatively easily. As the frames of video are captured at regular intervals, the drop verses time makes for a very accurate curve.

The North Tower communications tower and roof line accelerated into the lower building. There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.

Lets get this straight before we continue. Are you an explosives man with big explosions that are heard and seen or a thermite man with silent action and no visible reactions in any videos?

Or both?

[Dave Rogers]

Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

The suggestion would be that these VOCs accumulate in cavities in the rubble pile, and that collapses in the rubble pile could release these accumulations at random times. The result would be a localised spike, both temporal and geographical, exactly as was observed. Do you have any reason to believe that was unlikely? [1]

Dave

[1] Other than, of course, "No such thing has ever been observed before", which is of course equally true of what Ryan and Jones are suggesting.

[ElMondoHummus]

The paper states: “The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried with the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates, violent, shortlived, 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 VOC’s seen on those dates.”


Such spikes would be consistent with the fires reaching pockets of unburnt material. No one claims that the debris piles are consistent all the way through; on the contrary, you'd have areas that are nothing but highly flammable office contents, and areas that are nothing but structural material such as steel members and other components of the building frame.


Ryan doesn’t make a case for “persistent thermite reactions.” The very quick, energetic exothermic reaction is over very rapidly. In the event an excess was used to sever connections in the perimeter and core columns, which is entirely consistent with the lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated, it is highly plausible pockets of un-ignited thermite/thermate existed in the pile. At any rate, there is sufficient cause to investigate incendiaries.


The handwave in Ryan's and Jones's work is the assertion that thermite is responsible for these spikes. First of all, nothing requires that the energy in thermite is necessary for such spikes; recall that the debris piles reached 2800 degrees in some spots. There was enough thermal energy present to account for combustion in buried spots without the need to resort to thermite. Secondly, the idea that the fires found a pocket of combustible material is, as I noted above, a far more likely explanation in that it does not require the presence of thermite, which is contraindicated in many ways, not the least of which is the lack of opportunity to install such an incendiary.


BTW, concerning benzene levels:
The general equation is: micrograms/m3 = (ppbv)(12.19)(MW) / (273.15 + oC) where: micrograms/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (i.e., micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air) MW = molecular weight of the gaseous pollutant ppbv = parts per billion by volume (i.e., volume of gaseous pollutant per billion volumes of ambient air) oC = degrees Centigrade (Source: as a new commentor, not allowed to cite the source...)
MW of benzene is 78.1 g/mol

82 micrograms/m3 = ~26 ppb at 20 degrees C

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation. Especially in light of the EPA’s failure to warn workers and others of the environmental dangers to working in the area at the time, and in light of the sicknesses and deaths that are occurring in first responders.


That's true, and if it was a standalone critique of the EPA's conclusion regarding safety at Ground Zero, then it would be a valid one. However, Ryan and Jones are trying to create an energetics argument to support thermite without explaining why such a material is necessary to explain the spikes in emission to begin with. As I said, there's nothing stopping such spikes from being due to unequal distribution of flammable debris - or in other words: There being "pockets" of highly flammable material surrounded by less flamable items - and given that such debris is known to have been present (as opposed to thermite, which would have to be introduced) it is a far more likely scenario. So in short, sure, there may indeed be a health issue here, but any investigation into such should revolve around issues of warning workers. That's hardly a call for a new overall investigation.

[RedIbis]

The suggestion would be that these VOCs accumulate in cavities in the rubble pile, and that collapses in the rubble pile could release these accumulations at random times. The result would be a localised spike, both temporal and geographical, exactly as was observed.

Of course it was exactly as observed. What you're insinuating is that it was exactly as expected. Your scenario accounts for the presence of these spikes, but not necessarily for the levels of these spikes. Please keep in mind that the greatest spike of benzene levels took place in November, at 10x the daily average.

I see a "magic concentration of office contents" theory in our future.

ETA: Upon further review the greatest spikes of benzene took place in February 02 at 610,000ppb.

[sdemetri]

Both.

Dave, I have read Bzant and he tries to make that argument. I was not convinced as I have never seen it demonstrated. The "retardation" of the upper block looks alot to me like "deceleration" of which we see none. I was trained as a chemist, not an engineer. It seems this hypothesis, crush up/ crush down, has been forwarded to try to explain progressive collapse, but acceleration occurs with a lack of resistance. Opposing forces require some resistance; one is either stronger than the other, or they perfectly cancel out. The mass of the upper block was not so great as to provide an overriding force that would destroy the material below it before it arrives, therefore accelerating through it. That makes no sense to me...

You said the collapse was chaotic. The repeated symmetry seen in many stills and video does not seem at all chaotic. Corner assemblies remain intact while a straight, not chaotic, destruction front blows out windows, from one corner to the other simultaneously, floor by floor. It is very regular, very symetrical. There is symetry in the plumes of debris at collapse initiation, while the upper mass accelerates down. The symetry is very close to the same for both buildings, although each building had unique damage.

[ElMondoHummus]

The suggestion would be that these VOCs accumulate in cavities in the rubble pile, and that collapses in the rubble pile could release these accumulations at random times. The result would be a localised spike, both temporal and geographical, exactly as was observed. Do you have any reason to believe that was unlikely? [1]

Dave

[1] Other than, of course, "No such thing has ever been observed before", which is of course equally true of what Ryan and Jones are suggesting.

Oh! You got me thinking. I didn't consider that scenario. In my argument above, I was thinking that the material such organic compounds were enclosed in - such as the computer plastics responsible for the 1,3-DPP - would themselves be in pockets. That would make sense, as vertically you'd have layers of floor material, then layers of office material, etc., and horizontally you'd have segments of wall material, then segments of office contents... the point being that I was imagining that the original material (plastics, rubber, PVC, etc.) would be in pockets, catch fire once the conflageration reached them, then release the compounds in question. And that's still valid.


But, I also like your suggestion.
The fires release volatile compounds.
Such compounds rise into pockets, voids, cavities, whatever, in the rubble and become trapped.
Events above the pockets/voids/cavities/etc. - such as material above burning away, or cleanup efforts shifting the debris -open the cavities up and allow the VOCs to escape.
That, too, is equally valid. In truth, I think the reality is some combination of both hypotheses. But thanks for getting me to think more fully about that. I'd only considered my own model as an explanation of the observation.

[16.5]

Welcome to the site, sdemetri

You claim that “Comparing the WTC fires to the Centralia underground fire is completely irrelevant as the two have nothing in common, or any connections whatsoever.” This stopped me dead in my tracks, as we are talking about subterranean fires in the pile at GZ. My confusion doubled when I read:

“This paper assumes there is much plastic, polyvinyl chloride, computer housings, office materials in the rubble. It is the release of particulate matter, and the documentation that shows typical release patterns of PM in large structural fires, as well as the concentrations of specific compounds that EPA and Cahill reported, that are not adequately explained by what is known about large structural fires.”

So subterranean fires at Centralia are irrelevant to understanding what happened in the subterranean pile, but large structural fires are very relevant? Is that your claim?

Next:

“You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Source: nist factsheets/faqs_8_2006 (August 2006)”

Curious that you are simply reciting one of Jones’ own claims that concerned an alleged plume of smoke from the upper stories of the WTC long before the collapse. What exactly does this have to do with what was happening in the pile weeks or months later?

“And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper.”

Is that what you took from his post? That he was parsing one line of the article? Really? IT seemed to the rest of us that he was testing the sources claimed for some very significant assumptions upon which the article was based. The sources were found to be baseless. It is unfortunate that you did not take the time to understand what was posted.

“The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments.”

Really? Well, why don’t we just agree to disagree then, champ. Let me know what you have found wrong with Mangoose’s excellent investigation.

[SDC]

Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

Could you provide information on the "levels ... recorded"? I thought in one of these discussions it was said that the topic had hardly been studied anywhere. That would mean that your implied criticism, above, isn't valid.

[sdemetri]

Such spikes would be consistent with the fires reaching pockets of unburnt material. No one claims that the debris piles are consistent all the way through; on the contrary, you'd have areas that are nothing but highly flammable office contents, and areas that are nothing but structural material such as steel members and other components of the building frame.

The point of the paper, at least one point, is to highlight the fact that neither Cahill nor EPA could explain to spikes in VOC. They were atypical. They were not expected in very large structural fires, another very unexpected occurrance in what were very unexpected collapses. The evidence for high temperatures in volatized metals is completely unexpected and in need of explanation. As Cahill said, "they should not have been there..." and he and apparently no one else has any explanation for it. Highly energetic nanocomposites provide an explanation that is very consistent with many other aspects of the evidence. It plausibly explains USGS's finding of molybdenum microspheres, RJ Lee's findings of volatized lead, and aluminosilicates, Worcester Polytech's findings of volatized steel. The typical large structure fire does not explain these phenomena.

[RedIbis]

Just a note on the article. Initially, I read the maximum level of benzene at 180,000ppb, but that was only for November.

In February of 02, when most of GZ had been cleared, benzene levels were recorded at 610,000ppb.

All of this data appears to come from the EPA 2004 (http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/cd)report

[Blender Head]

Hey Red, what do you think of the post by Mackey that you called 'helpful'? Could you address it?

Thanks!

[sdemetri]

Welcome to the site, sdemetri

Thanks, glad to be here.


So subterranean fires at Centralia are irrelevant to understanding what happened in the subterranean pile, but large structural fires are very relevant? Is that your claim?

Yes. These are two very different phenomenon, having different causes, and different fuels.


“You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Source: nist factsheets/faqs_8_2006 (August 2006)”

Curious that you are simply reciting one of Jones’ own claims that concerned an alleged plume of smoke from the upper stories of the WTC long before the collapse. What exactly does this have to do with what was happening in the pile weeks or months later?

NIST establishes by this that an unusual flame was seen emitting a plume of white smoke. Jones also notes what NIST said. NIST called it unusual and by its description describes in very clear terms, though does not admit, how a thermate reaction also looks. NIST establishes a possibility that what was seen was a thermate reaction. If a possible thermate reaction was seen burning before the complete pulverization of the buildings, it is highly plausible unreacted thermate survived the fall and existed in the pile. Again, the lack of resistance shown to the building falling apart is very easily explained by this type of reaction "cutting up" the building. No structural integrity equals no resistance.

[pomeroo]

It is pretty easy to take stills from the video of the North Tower, establish a point on the communications tower and on the roof line and plot a curve of their acceleration into the rest of the building, a presumably intact building below the damage zone. The pixels in the still frames make for a very accurate way to measure the drop as they can be converted to feet relatively easily. As the frames of video are captured at regular intervals, the drop verses time makes for a very accurate curve.

The North Tower communications tower and roof line accelerated into the lower building. There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.


And your imaginary conspiracy, of course, just happened to plant its tons of explosives on the impact floors?

[RedIbis]

Hey Red, what do you think of the post by Mackey that you called 'helpful'? Could you address it?

Thanks!

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

[ElMondoHummus]

The point of the paper, at least one point, is to highlight the fact that neither Cahill nor EPA could explain to spikes in VOC. They were atypical. They were not expected in very large structural fires, another very unexpected occurrance in what were very unexpected collapses. The evidence for high temperatures in volatized metals is completely unexpected and in need of explanation. As Cahill said, "they should not have been there..." and he and apparently no one else has any explanation for it. Highly energetic nanocomposites provide an explanation that is very consistent with many other aspects of the evidence. It plausibly explains USGS's finding of molybdenum microspheres, RJ Lee's findings of volatized lead, and aluminosilicates, Worcester Polytech's findings of volatized steel. The typical large structure fire does not explain these phenomena.

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

Dr. Frank Greening came up with a potential explanation for the aluminosilicates:
The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. Iron is transported as a volatile di or tri-chloride. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. As the very least it will be oxide (probably Fe3O4) coated and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. This readily combines with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form an iron-rich aluminosilicate microsphere on cooling. Other elements such as K and Ca are also readily incorporated into these melts. This is the chemistry of CLAY minerals! As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.

Regarding the Worchester Polytechnic findings: Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson's observed eutectic reactions. Not only does that not indicate thermite, it contradicts it; thermite would have destroyed eutectic mix.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards. How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did. On top of that, how many large structures collapsed? How many have had jets ram them, and leave behind the material present airliners? And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual? A comparison against other structures would presume that the contents were similar, and that's not a given. How many other structures would have the enterprise-class banks of uninterruptible power supplies, like the South tower did on the 82nd floor? How many large structures were built over electric substations, like WTC 7?

The point is, thermite (let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one) is simply not necessary to explain any of the findings you cite. And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced. Jones's and Ryan's findings do not change that fact, they do not change the fact that molybdenum is an expected component of steel, that eutectic reactions are contraindicatory of thermite, and that the release of volatile compounds such as aromatics does not require thermite at all. Their paper is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in an explanation where none is needed.

[RedIbis]

Could you provide information on the "levels ... recorded"? I thought in one of these discussions it was said that the topic had hardly been studied anywhere. That would mean that your implied criticism, above, isn't valid.

Instead of hoping it's invalid, why don't you click any of the links provided. Better yet, why not read the article and see for yourself that the data and tables come from the EPA.

[Blender Head]

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

I meant with more than just handwaving.

[lapman]

EdMondo, what affect would the compression of the flammable material in the debris pile have on both heat release and the concentration of VOC released?

[funk de fino]

Both.


Explosives and Thermite?

Which floor had explosives and which floors had thermite?

When was it placed and by whom?

[sdemetri]

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read the paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else explain.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well.

[DavidJames]

...a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." Well there you go. Thanks for using those quotes. It removes all doubt that you cherry pick evidence, or worse, are not above lying to push your agenda.

[sdemetri]

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read Ryan's paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else have explained.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well. Careful you don't rest your argument on something that isn't provable. If someone DID have access to place incendiaries or explosives by means you are not aware of, your argument that they could not have been used because they could not have been placed falls completely apart. In other words, for you to say that is not airtight.

[lapman]

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.Thank you for finally proving that you have zero idea of what you're talking about. If you had done anything close to research, you would have known that the firemen were at the 78th floor when they made that statement. That is 2 floors below the main crash site and fire. IIRC, fire generally does not travel down a building.
:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

How many of the other large structural fires involved most of the flammable material being compressed by several hundred thousand tons of debris?

[16.5]

Sdemetri

You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

I know you are new around here, and you really, really admire Jones' work, but please do not come around here repeating Truther lies.

That two small pockets quote has been discussed and rebutted repeatedly on this site. Moreover, any suggestion that what was happening on 78 indicates what was happening above that floor is simply baseless. "The fires were not that large." Cripes, that is indefensible.

I suggest that you do some homework, first, and stick closely to the subject, which as I recall is Jones' and wateboy's second bs vanity article.

Plus I am waiting for your substantive response to Mangoose.

[sdemetri]

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read Ryan's paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else have explained.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well. Careful you don't rest your argument on something that isn't provable. If someone DID have access to place incendiaries or explosives by means you are not aware of, your argument that they could not have been used because they could not have been placed falls completely apart. In other words, for you to say that is not airtight. It is pure speculation.

[pomeroo]

{snip-drivel}

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.



How quickly our new pseudoscientist reveals himself as yet another garden-variety twoofer. No, you certainly haven't made much of an argument:

(from debunking911.com)




http://www.debunking911.com/palmer_orio_bc_bat007.jpg

Orio Palmer
Deputy Chief
Battalion 7
Memorial Service was held
on October 13, 2001
The fireman's quote saying all that was needed was two fire hoses to put out the fires is taken out of context by conspiracy theorists. They even bring the dead fireman's wife into the picture. From a well known conspiracy theory site...
“Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure. “
Firefighter's quotes are routinely taken out of context by 9/11 conspiracy sites. The conspiracy theorists use the quote above to suggest the fire was never large enough to cause the steel to melt. Let's forget that the NIST never said the steel needed to melt for a moment. But the steel did have to have enough fire to expand and weaken the steel. They point to the fireman saying "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" as in two fire hoses. Sounds small, doesn't it? But let's examine the quote further...
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Recorded audio of the actual event..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html)
Now look at this...
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/05/17/stairway.htm)
South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.
It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.
The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?
If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?
If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?
Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?
Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?
This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”. It would actually confirm the NIST report which says the trusses heated, expanded then cooled and contracted as the fires moved on. It was the contracting trusses which pulled the columns inward causing the collapse. Once again, conspiracy theorists debunk themselves.
Below is a photo gallery which shows the progression of fire, bowing of perimeter columns and sagging trusses. It also shows why there was little fire on the 78th floor.
Photo Gallery of fire in chronological order: Fire Gallery 1 (http://www.debunking911.com/fire2.htm) | Fire Gallery 2 (http://www.debunking911.com/fire3.htm) | Fire Gallery 3 (http://www.debunking911.com/fire4.htm)
More fire photos: General Fire Gallery (http://www.debunking911.com/genfires.htm)

[Dave Rogers]

The "retardation" of the upper block looks alot to me like "deceleration" of which we see none. I was trained as a chemist, not an engineer. It seems this hypothesis, crush up/ crush down, has been forwarded to try to explain progressive collapse, but acceleration occurs with a lack of resistance. Opposing forces require some resistance; one is either stronger than the other, or they perfectly cancel out. The mass of the upper block was not so great as to provide an overriding force that would destroy the material below it before it arrives, therefore accelerating through it. That makes no sense to me...

If your last sentence refers to the paragraph preceding it, I agree; your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I can't even divine from it what you're trying to say. It's been shown ad nauseam through calculations that the dynamic loading from the upper block was greater than the ultimate structural strength of the support columns in the lower block. Progressive collapse isn't dependent on a crush down / crush up model, but simply on the assumption that the crushed material doesn't magically vanish in mid-collapse. As for your statement "acceleration occurs with a lack of resistance", it seems to me to show a misunderstanding of basic Newtonian mechanics. If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple.

You said the collapse was chaotic. The repeated symmetry seen in many stills and video does not seem at all chaotic. Corner assemblies remain intact while a straight, not chaotic, destruction front blows out windows, from one corner to the other simultaneously, floor by floor. It is very regular, very symetrical. There is symetry in the plumes of debris at collapse initiation, while the upper mass accelerates down. The symetry is very close to the same for both buildings, although each building had unique damage.

You must be either watching a different series of videos than the ones present in reality, or using a different definition of symmetry. Both collapses were characterised by a measurable tilt of the upper block. That alone destroys symmetry, and will smear out the floor-on-floor impacts, hence smoothing out any variations in the effective forces due to structural resistance and momentum transfer. The tilt of WTC2 was about three times that of WTC1, and a huge chunk of WTC2 was observed falling on WTC3 when nothing of similar size was seen falling to the other sides.

I think what you're seeing is what you've chosen to see, and there's no point arguing about that because you'll never admit that the videos and pictures don't show what you want to believe they show. To anyone viewing them objectively, the two collapses are clearly not symmetrical, visibly different, and obviously highly chaotic events.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And yet this is exactly what the truth movement is guilty of. The thinning of the steel flanges is absolutely impossible to explain as an effect of steel experiencing temperatures above its melting point; the most basic understanding of the phases of matter tells us that. The corrosion of steel in the WTC7 rubble pile has been explained as due to eutectic melting in a corrosive atmosphere, at temperatures attainable in a smouldering fire but far too low to have arisen from a thermite reaction. The truth movement starts from the assumption that any anomaly proves an inside job, then tries to construct a line of reasoning from one to the other. In this case, as in every other, that line simply doesn't exist.

Dave

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey, regarding an earlier post …

In fact, the un-extinguishable fires have NOT been adequately explained. Not in any study by NIST, FEMA, USGS, RJ Lee, Worcester Polytech, any other study, that I am aware of, that has been officially commissioned or carried out. NIST denies that there even were fires.

NIST denies that there were fires?

Either source this, or I'm just going to come right out and call you a liar. This is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Not a good way to begin here.


Comparing the WTC fires to the Centralia underground fire is completely irrelevant as the two have nothing in common, or any connections whatsoever. That Centralia took place doesn’t explain, adequately or not, what generated the WTC fires, or sustained them. The Centralia fire has a natural fuel source, the WTC fires had an undetermined fuel source.

The WTC fires do not have an undetermined fuel source. It was packed with combustibles. Conservation of mass guarantees those combustibles were still there after collapse. The DELTA group, linked previously, estimated that 85% of the combustibles remained after collapse.

The best Mr. Ryan and company can hope to do is speculate about an additional fuel source. But whatever signal they hope to find is a discrepancy between the expected fire, based on ordinary office materials, cars, construction materials, etc.; and the actual fire performance. They hardly treat the baseline fire at all, only -- like you -- claiming it is "unexplained." Stuff and nonsense.

It is true that Centralia differs in some ways, as do most historical examples of persistent low-level fires. That's because WTC basements packed with burning materials are also rare. The fuel in Centralia is coal, not wood and synthetics, but these have comparable energy densities. The oxygen environment is also similar. In contrast, "ordinary structure fires" have the exact same materials, but the ventilation story isn't the same at all. This is quite significant when considering the chemical species in the plume.


That the official studies have not addressed the fires at the WTC piles is, in fact, very relevant to the statement by Ryan that they “have not been adequately explained…” If they have been adequately explained, cite your documentation. A casual reference to a known underground fire proves absolutely nothing.

I gave two references in my previous post. One includes Dr. Cahill, whom Mr. Ryan has cherry-picked.


This paper assumes there is much plastic, polyvinyl chloride, computer housings, office materials in the rubble. It is the release of particulate matter, and the documentation that shows typical release patterns of PM in large structural fires, as well as the concentrations of specific compounds that EPA and Cahill reported, that are not adequately explained by what is known about large structural fires.

Again, this is because the fire in question is a poor match to a large structural fire. When was the last time a large structure burned for months?


The paper states: “The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried with the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates, violent, shortlived, 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 VOC’s seen on those dates.”

Emphasis added. Why would they "somehow ignite on specific dates?" Deliberate? Really, really slow fuses?

And I'm not impressed. There are any number of reasons why these events could occur. Again, see Dr. Cahill's work. Just because the benzene etc. signal is spiky doesn't mean the benzene production is similarly spiky. There are many reasons why pockets of volatiles would be released in surges.

Furthermore, if there are such radically violent processes taking place at random intervals, where's the other evidence? Have you calculated the heat output of your supposed events? Why was this not seen?


Cahill attempts to discuss the aberrant findings, but with hypotheses that don’t seem very likely. Many of the aberrant findings, “very fine aerosols typical of combustion temperatures far higher than [expected in] the WTC collapses piles… some elements abundantly and others hardly at all, despite similar abundances in the collapse dust…organic species in the very fine mode that would not survive high temperatures…” which organic species included sulphur and sulphur-based compounds and fine particles of chemically bound silicon, in their abundance are not easily explained by what is typical of large structural fires. Cahill attempted to ditch the “high temperature” explanation in favor of volatized metals due to high concentrations of chlorine, not a likely scenario. High temperatures do easily explain volatized metals, and is corroborated by the USGS, RJ Lee, and Worcester Polytech findings of extreme temperatures.

You'll pardon me if I don't find compelling your claim that Dr. Cahill's hypotheses "don't seem likely."

Regarding the RJ Lee report, as we've discussed here, his samples were taken many months afterward, after the cleanup process was complete. His evidence of extremely high temperatures is consistent with the cutting torches used in salvage operations. You cannot blame his findings on the fire.


They likewise found evidence of extreme temperatures and volatized metals. Sulphur and sulphur-based compounds, silicon, and other volatized metals are consistent with nanocomposite energetic materials, but not easily explained in their concentrations and release patterns by typical structural fires. Cahill said in relation to some of the PM, “these particles simply should not be there…”

Actually, all of those are easily explained by typical structure fires, with possible exception of a few metallic species with high melting points. Regarding the metallic species, as I linked before, Lioy et al. demonstrate that their concentrations are not unusual immediately after collapse. The other readings you have are from long after the collapse, and as such, are not linked to any of the fires.

Even were this not the case, inventing a magical, never-before-seen, sabotage device that leaves no other indications of its existence is not the answer. This is inflation in action, a gross affirming the consequent logical fallacy.


You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Equivocation fallacy. That's ONE CLOUD. So where's this unusual flame in the other tower? In structurally significant locations in either tower?

And are you honestly suggesting that some freakish nano-thermite-matrix device is the only explanation for this lone event?


So, not “of course, gypsum or concrete…” white smoke… consistent with a thermite/thermate incendiary device. Your dismissal of what NIST calls “white smoke” generated by an “unusual” and “bright flame,” as gypsum or concrete is unsubstantiated. Thermate burns with a very bright flame and gives off a plume of white smoke consisting of aluminum oxide, which is consistent with the flame and white plume NIST comments on.

Lots of things burn with a very bright flame, and there are sources of white dust AND smoke AND vapor present in the thousands of tons. This is yet another spectacular affirming the consequent logical fallacy.


Ryan doesn’t make a case for “persistent thermite reactions.” The very quick, energetic exothermic reaction is over very rapidly. In the event an excess was used to sever connections in the perimeter and core columns, which is entirely consistent with the lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated, it is highly plausible pockets of un-ignited thermite/thermate existed in the pile. At any rate, there is sufficient cause to investigate incendiaries.

Mr. Ryan attempts to make the case for thermite reactions taking place months after collapse. Seems pretty persistent to me.

Your attempt to distract to the standard Truth Movement drivel about "lack of resistance" etc. is noted. We've also discussed the collapse initiation and completion to death, and there are no discrepancies. You argue here from another false premise, namely that the collapse is also not explained. It is.


None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments.

None of us have even attempted to prevent such an investigation. Instead, we are simply recognizing that Mr. Ryan's comments are nonsense. As to your claims that our arguments are unsubstantiated, I count two lies and two gross logical errors among your other transgressions in this post alone, so I flatly reject your analysis of the debate.


180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation. Especially in light of the EPA’s failure to warn workers and others of the environmental dangers to working in the area at the time, and in light of the sicknesses and deaths that are occurring in first responders.

Yes, it is a large amount, which is why Dr. Cahill remarked upon it in the first place. But once you understand the complex geometry of the shifting Pile, the effects of weather etc. on the plume, and the much higher than normal benzene production due to the largely anaerobic combustion taking place, the mystery disappears.

Idiotic speculation about mysterious incendiaries -- freaking enormous ones, ones that were apparently unnecessary to trigger the collapse, is madness. Tell me, did They load the Towers with what, twice the demo they really needed, and half of it failed? Or are the ratios worse? I'd laugh at you for proposing this in a post here. The fact that you've duped another flaky on-line journal into printing it elevates this episode beyond all known parody.

[R.Mackey]

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

Actually, it does. Again, see the DELTA group papers.

And regarding the last point, how does Mr. Ryan's hypothesis account for the greatest spike occuring long afterward? Surely there's no huge stockpile of nanononsense detonating after it was removed? How does that work??

[Pardalis]

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released

Yeah, did you notice those two towers collapse?

And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper.

He revealed a major flaw with his sourcing method, good thing Mangoose took the time to look, I'm sure you would never have picked up on it yourself.

This is how falsehoods snowball.

[Pardalis]

Any bets on how RedIbis is going to spin this around and ignore?

Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

:rolleyes:

[Dave Rogers]

And regarding the last point, how does Mr. Ryan's hypothesis account for the greatest spike occuring long afterward? Surely there's no huge stockpile of nanononsense detonating after it was removed? How does that work??

This seems to be a classic truther error. If a hypothesis fails to fit the data perfectly, any hypothesis proposed to replace it should fit the data better, not worse. None of them seem to get that point.

Dave

[Pardalis]

ETA: Upon further review the greatest spikes of benzene took place in February 02 at 610,000ppb.

How do you think this fits in your theory about thermate and CD?

[WildCat]

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large,
I'm glad you outed yourself as a liar right off the bat, so we know what kind of person we're dealing with.

[Pardalis]

I'm glad you outed yourself as a liar right off the bat, so we know what kind of person we're dealing with.

Maybe like Jones with his "white dust cloud" fiasco, he didn't bother yo verify his sources. That major problem doesn't seem to bother him for some reason.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

[beachnut]

This paper assumes there is much plastic, polyvinyl chloride, computer housings, office materials in the rubble. It is the release of particulate matter, and the documentation that shows typical release patterns of PM in large structural fires, as well as the concentrations of specific compounds that EPA and Cahill reported, that are not adequately explained by what is known about large structural fires.

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344



Thermate burns with a very bright flame and gives off a plume of white smoke consisting of aluminum oxide, which is consistent with the flame and white plume NIST comments on.

82 micrograms/m3 = ~26 ppb at 20 degrees C

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation. Especially in light of the EPA’s failure to warn workers and others of the environmental dangers to working in the area at the time, and in light of the sicknesses and deaths that are occurring in first responders.
Bright flame? Could be a lot of things burning bright. Not thermite, cause zero thermite was found, where have you been for over 6 years? It could be this, some extra O2; 9mbiiP24PGM

Thermite, you mention thermite and I know from the get go, you are pure fantasy on 9/11 and your ability to understand 9/11 is hampered by unknown things. What are they, why are 9/11 truthers so illogical and evidence free?

Benzene is found in fires. One grab sample makes an giant investigation, when they know where the benzene came from. What a joke, "the North Tower Pile smoke cloud has benzene in it" A few minute sample and we have a new CT? What a bunch of junk ideas. Thermite, says it all.

Hand waving! Thermite? What a laugh knowing Jones made up thermite. There was zero thermite used to destroy the WTC, by even mentioning thermite you have entered into a rarified strata of stupid ideas! Why stupid, zero evidence and the impacts and fires did the job. Just hand waving! It is you.

EPA was sampling, this is it, the total CT is they urged workers to wear respirators, and now you make up lies. Good for you!

To protect workers at the site, EPA attempts to identify the highest concentration levels of benzene by taking grab samples where smoke plumes have been sighted at the work site. Some of the results have been dramatically higher (up to 4000 times) than those taken in the surrounding streets. EPA has urged workers to wear respirators and other protective gear, which the Agency and others have provided. Used properly, respirators can protect workers from exposure to benzene and other contaminants at the levels we have found.

The only think unusual about 9/11 is the few fringe people who can't understand Jones made up Thermite after 4 years and he was fired (retired in lieu of) due to spreading lies without evidence; he is an embarrassment. This paper is more proof Jones et al are just pure fantasy on 9/11.

[R.Mackey]

Also, just in case anyone here still thinks benzene production is unusual:

Benzene and Barbeque (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V78-476TNB0-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5a7e40d5a6b77a08a458246d1a6ac326)

Clearly the situation here is quite a bit more complicated, but that's still no reason to start imagining comic-book supervillains with magical incendiaries.

[WildCat]

Maybe like Jones with his "white dust cloud" fiasco, he didn't bother yo verify his sources. That major problem doesn't seem to bother him for some reason.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Anyone who has seen the videos of the burning towers and says the fires were small and isolated is a liar.

The only benefit of the doubt I will offer goes to the severely mentally handicapped, of which our new Steven Jones fanboy doesn't appear to be.

[RedIbis]

Actually, it does. Again, see the DELTA group papers.

And regarding the last point, how does Mr. Ryan's hypothesis account for the greatest spike occuring long afterward? Surely there's no huge stockpile of nanononsense detonating after it was removed? How does that work??

I don't think Ryan does present such a hypothesis. The question to you is what could be the cause of such spikes, remembering that the highest recorded levels occur long after office contents and debris are removed?

[Pardalis]

I don't think Ryan does present such a hypothesis. The question to you is what could be the cause of such spikes, remembering that the highest recorded levels occur long after office contents and debris are removed?

Can we agree then that this particular point can't possibly have anything to do with conspiracy theories?

[beachnut]

There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.
No explosions. Was it thermite, or RDX. Neither.

You need some help in physics, and no firemen say large explosions, they heard big noises of a building falling. But zero sounds of explosives. Over 6 years and you are starting at brick woo.

Your problem is summed up for you, free; zero understanding of physics ,conservation of momentum, and gravity.

[RedIbis]

Can we agree then that this particular point can't possibly have anything to do with conspiracy theories?

Unfortunately, controlled demolition is equally justifiable to gravity driven collapse and theories other than the conventional ones should be explored.

[sdemetri]

I apologize for the multiple posts. My browser froze up not showing the posts as going through.

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.

ElMondo's "probably" statement, "Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size conflagration that the Twin Towers did..." elicited my reply, and I stand by it. There have been very large structures that have suffered much larger fires, and didn't react as the Twin Towers with their "not unusual" and much smaller fires.

Dave Rogers, the "calculations ad nauseum" comment is from my POV a lot of singing to the choir.

Be that as it may, you said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple." Absolutely. Very intuitive concept, and I don't argue that. It makes no sense to me when viewing the video of the North Tower collapsing to measure acceleration, and then have you conjure up an hypothesis that on its face contradicts what you just said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate..." Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work. In your argument you have not shown what those forces were in a way that corroborates with many other observations. You are saying MG>F1+F2, the buildings collapsed, and that proves no controlled demolition. I don't see it that way at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.

[Pardalis]

Unfortunately, controlled demolition is equally justifiable to gravity driven collapse and theories other than the conventional ones should be explored.

Pay attention Red, I'm talking about the spike in air concentrations of benzene 5 months after the collapse.

I'm no chemist or meteorologist but that's a heck of a long time for traces of CD or thermate to remain and propagate, especially in a windy place like Manhattan.

[ElMondoHummus]

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.


What it is not evidence of is the fact that such microspheres were created in the building or rubble piles fires, let alone by thermite. Nothing about their existence proves the fact that they were created in the fires, and given that ferrous and molybdenum spheres are the result of a variety of processes - brake dust, diesel emissions, welding and torch cutting, etc. - which were known to have occurred in the history of the towers, it is ludicrous to posit that such "energetic nanoparticles" (overfancy terminology for "thermite") were responsible for their formation.


Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.


I'm fully aware they found areas of erosion. And those areas were the result of eutectic reactions, not the result of thermite. That is also quite obvious from a reading of their material. Read what they found:


Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.


And no, it was not unexplained. The erosion was due to the presence of sulfur and temperatures postulated by those researchers to be close to 1000 degrees C. Which is far lower than what thermite reacts at (and which is also why thermite destroys eutectic mixtures), but well within the range the debris pile was reaching with nothing more than standard office combustibles.


Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.


You miss my point. There were many unusual details about the event that differentiates the World Trade Center disaster from common fires.


You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.


Oh, no... you did not just make the "two small pockets" "two lines" mistake there, did you? From a firefighter who's posted in this forum:


Most conspiracy theorists think two lines sounds like a small amount and therefore the fire was small right? Well not necessarily, two 2 1/2 inch hoses with 1 1/8th inch smooth bore nozzles can deliver more water at greater pressure than compared to the 1 1/2 inch unlined hoses that would have been stored on site, which anybody in the fire services knows, is usually crap since they don't meet the same requirements as hoses used by the fire department. As basic SOP during a high rise, they would have opened the gravity tanks located above them and turned on the fire pumps (which most likely would have been automatic) in addition to hooking two engines into an exterior outlet to add more pressure in the pipe, 650 psi to be exact. The nozzle pressure would have been reduced to 80-70 psi either by a PRD (Pressure Regulating Device) or at the stand pipe valve. Also the second line would have been hooked up at least two floors below the first line as not to interfere with residual pressure. So what does this all mean? Well if the stand pipe systems were still intact and operational they would have been able to deliver over 338 GPM (Gallons per minute)

GPM = (29.7)(d)^2(NP)

GPM = Gallons Per Minute
29.7 = Constant
d = Diameter in inches
NP = Nozzle Pressure

(29.7)(1.125)^2(80)(Use 81 for Square Root Purposes)
(29.7)(1.265)(9)
(37.5705, Rounded down to 37.57)(9)

GPM = 338


and at a weight of 8.33 pounds per gallon you are talking about over a ton of water with just one line alone. Now if you double that you are looking at over 2.5 tons of water.


Please if you have anything to add or correct go ahead

Accuracy is necessary in discussions like these. Chief Palmer did not say "two small", he said "two isolated pockets". He wasn't saying they were small at all, and the fact that he was dedicating two lines to just those pockets speaks to the size of those fires. On top of that, he was merely talking about what he saw on the 78th floor of the south tower; anyone who's studied the fires would know that there were mutiple fires above that, from floor 78 to 82, with small spot fires on floors 83 and 84. The tower fires spread over multiple acre-wide floors. Calling them small is contradictory to reality.

Regarding Eagar: Let's look at what he said:

Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.


He said it was not unusual in the context of claims that the steel melted. And on top of that, he was discussing the tower fires prior to collapse, not the rubble pile fires afterwards, which had entirely different characteristics due to the differences in ventilation and concentration of combustibles.

And now, away from the diversion necessitated by the distortion of Palmer's remark and back to the crux of the issue: The size of the fires. These fires were exceptionally large - again, multistory, and on most of the involved floors, an acre wide. And that's before the towers fell. After they fell - which is the period of time Ryan and Jones are discussing in their paper - not only do you have those fires concentrated into whatever size the debris piles compacted the floors into, you also have one of the longest lasting strucutral & debris pile fires ever. The compression leads to pockets of intense fire, as the burning floors are now collapsed into a fraction of their former height, and the duration of the fires is well documented (they were not extinguished until December, if I recall correctly).

So, given that these fires were unusually large, unusually intense in the rubble piles (note that last: In the rubble piles; measurements were taken that read up to 2800 degrees F), and unusually long lasting, how does any comparison to other structure fires hold?

This is what I mean when I say that the World Trade Center events were unusual in many regards.



We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read Ryan's paper yourself.


Of course I've read it. That doesn't mean I'm swayed by it. On the contrary, I see that they fail to link the VOC emissions with thermite. Thermite is hardly necessary to account for such spikes.


I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else have explained.


You are parroting a pair of researcher who do have a track record of disguising and trying to fool people. Look in prior threads in this forum for evidence of such; I'll give you a free example. Steven Jones continues to attribute the 1,3-DPP to some "solgel" that holds thermite in place, when his very source attributes it to the plastics available in computer monitors. It is deceptive to argue the point he does in the absence of his own source's attribution of the signal to a more mundane origin, especially given the fact that computer monitors are among the known contents of the fire-involved floors.

At any rate, given the known deceptiveness of Ryan and Jones, when you parrot their choice of phrase, you do in fact end up disguising their conclusion with terminology. What they are referring to is "thermite". Why they choose to use a euphemism to refer to it now I do not know, but the fact remains that they are adjusting their terminology unnecessarily. They are discussing "thermite". Any other term only serves to disguise this fact.


I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well. Careful you don't rest your argument on something that isn't provable. If someone DID have access to place incendiaries or explosives by means you are not aware of, your argument that they could not have been used because they could not have been placed falls completely apart. In other words, for you to say that is not airtight. It is pure speculation.

I return your own advice to you yourself, with one modification: Careful that you do not rest your argument on something that is refuted. I realize that you're not arguing how incendiaries got there, but that does not change the fact that this requirement for the theory essentially moots it. There is zero evidence of prior installation of such material. And the argument "if someone DID have access" is wishful thinking, not to mention refuted by simple logical analysis: If someone did indeed have access, then we'd be seeing gross evidence of its use, not small erosions on isolated beams, and we wouldn't have to be resorting to esoteric discussions over microspheres. We'd have seen clear and unambiguous evidence of its use, as well as its emplacement. For example, core columns would have shown clear signs of thermite use, and we would have also seen columns separate at locations other than where they were welded together; we would have seen the columns separate at points corresponding to where the workers had access to the beams to install the thermite. On top of that, the building occupants would also have seen evidence of the construction, unless you want to posit that the thermite was somehow emplaced between the building evacutation and the subsequent collapse; I'd really love to see that fantasy explained.

All in all, this subject is yet another one grinding to a halt on known faults with the conspiracy hypothesis. The only new component to this argument - the one Jones and Ryan present, I mean - is that they're discussing evidence from the rubble piles, and the pyrolysis emissions. They're still attempting to swing the argument of thermite around, and it still fails for the reasons it has always failed for. New attempts to link the presence of aromatics and other volatile organics to thermite use are novel, but do not overcome the previous points the thermite fantasy failed at.

[Pardalis]

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.

You don't think that Jone's big mistake about the "white dust cloud" claim isn't cause for concern about his credibility and methodology?

[lapman]

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.
So you believe another "Truth Movement" lie. Please explain the black smoke here.
http://www.ipb.org/images/Oil%20Fire%20in%20Iraq

[WildCat]

The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.
Oh dear god! :eek:

[DavidJames]

Oh dear god! :eek:Can "pull it" be far behind?

[mrbaracuda]

So you believe another "Truth Movement" lie. Please explain the black smoke here.
http://www.ipb.org/images/Oil%20Fire%20in%20Iraq

Any idea what those tubes are? Javelin? Tubes of that modern, reloadable bazooka? Flamethrower canisters?

[16.5]

sdemetri

"They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment."

I suggested that you think and research before you post, and yet again you repeat a stupid Twoofer lie that has been exposed repeatedly.

Wow, just wow. Two points: 1. it is absolutely false; 2. why in the name of god would anyone claim that the fires burning in the towers BEFORE the COLLAPSE were not in an oxygen rich environment? I seem to recall that there is "air" in New York and "air" has oxygen in it, and the Towers were in the "air" weren't they?

[sdemetri]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

[Dave_46]

<snip>
The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.
<snip?

This is at least the third fourth time I have posted this.

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)

Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk

Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Assembly.

Link

http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426. p

df

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.
Smoke produced by a fire also contains
toxic gases which are harmful to
people. A fire in a building with modern
fittings and materials generates smoke
that is thick and black, obscures vision,
causes great difficulty in breathing and
can block the escape routes.



This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke

colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen

starvation.

Dave

Edited to change Entertainment to Assembly in the document name

[lapman]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!
Are you forgetting the 767 sized hole that would let plenty of oxygen in? Nice dodge though. The picture is an oil fire. The fact remains is that smoke color is no indication of the amount of oxygen available to a fire. If the windows were so tightly sealed, what did all those people jump from?

[16.5]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

NOW he claims that black smoke is caused by a "uncontrolled burn"! The goal posts, they were right here a minute ago?

But wait "its controlled environment and windows that would not open." Perhaps you heard that two planes hit the towers and thousands of windows were broken?

WOW! Sdemtri, are you a No-Planer too?

[johnny karate]

sdemetri, I'm confused.

Black smoke = Oxygen-starved environment

or

Black Smoke = Uncontrolled burn

Which is it?

[Arus808]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn.

false. the smoke and fire comes from carbon based items being burned. nothing do with uncontrolled or controlled burns.

In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved.You are now lying. Or you forget the two large planes that made pretty sizable HOLES in those buildings to let all the OXYGEN in.

and the buildings are 90% air, or else, how does anyone breathe in them?


BLACK SMOKE is the result of CARBON based items burning. NOTHING MORE.


If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you.

sorry, but we have firefighters who have weighed in on this, including firefighters who are posters here. THIS IS FACt. BLACK smoke - indicates carbon rich items being burned. NOTHING MORE.


Herd mentality doesn't prove anything.This has nothing to do with herd mentality (and the only people exhibiting such mentality are truthers).

In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!shows that you know nothing about fires.

[Kent1]

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do.

NIST did not deny molten metals.
Here is what NIST said

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Here is what Cahill said:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=65238
Nevertheless, despite being angry about his own experiences with the government, Cahill is inclined to support the government’s official 9/11 story, if only because it provides the simplest explanation.

“I live by Occam’s razor,” he said. “The simplest explanation is the best. I have been in contact with the people with the thermite theories, and I’m not convinced. The idea that the building was brought down by thermite … there was plenty of energy in the building to bring it down. If you do an inventory of the building, there’s an incredible amount of combustible material. The plane comes in, lets in large amounts of oxygen, and you get intense heat. At 600 C to 1,000 C, the steel starts to bend.

“The buildings were extremely vulnerable to fire,” he continued. “The information to me seems to be very clear: A lot of energy and very poor design were responsible for the collapse.”

Cahill arrived at Ground Zero weeks after the reports of molten metal at the scene, but his extensive research on why the rubble piles smoldered so long was of interest to controlled-demolition theorists, who believed molten steel in the bottom of the piles provided the heat source. Such was not the case, Cahill said. Instead, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks.

[WildCat]

In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved.
There was a controlled environment after a freaking 767 hit it at over 400 mph and blasted a 3 story hole in one side and blew out every damned window on the other side?! Really? :jaw-dropp

Anyone who has seen the videos of the burning towers and says the fires were small and isolated is a liar.

The only benefit of the doubt I will offer goes to the severely mentally handicapped, of which our new Steven Jones fanboy doesn't appear to be.
OK, I'm seriously leaning towards giving sdemetri the benefit of the doubt now.

[BenBurch]

Red Ibis.

You SERIOUSLY wonder why the WTC towers have not been rebuilt???

Welcome to the world of Politics and Bureaucracy, my beaked buddy. It might be a hundred years before anybody can decide what to do about this hole in the ground.

[Arus808]

and remember, this is a private entity that is rebuilding (with some help from the govt).

There's a govt building in Hawaii that has been "under construction" for the better part of 20 years. I was 13 when they started razing the area to build this building. to this day, only the exterior structure of the building, and the first 3 floors (out of 5) has been built. I return to Hawaii to see if any progress has been made, and its i the SAME Condition as it was, when I left 5 years ago (with newly added graffiti and painted over graffiti in certain sections).

Its an eyesore; yet the govt can build three community centers, a new golf course, three new schools and a whole new suburb, in the 20 years that this vacant skeleton of a building, has been standing.

[WildCat]

It might be a hundred years before anybody can decide what to do about this hole in the ground.
Not 100 years, but maybe as long as Block 37 (http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Building/1301/108_North_State.php).

[Stellafane]

OK, I'm seriously leaning towards giving sdemetri the benefit of the doubt now.

This has to be the most backhanded "compliment" of the year.

(Well done!)

[sdemetri]

NIST did not deny molten metals.
Here is what NIST said


Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Here is what Cahill said:

Nevertheless, despite being angry about his own experiences with the government, Cahill is inclined to support the government’s official 9/11 story, if only because it provides the simplest explanation.

“I live by Occam’s razor,” he said. “The simplest explanation is the best. I have been in contact with the people with the thermite theories, and I’m not convinced. The idea that the building was brought down by thermite … there was plenty of energy in the building to bring it down. If you do an inventory of the building, there’s an incredible amount of combustible material. The plane comes in, lets in large amounts of oxygen, and you get intense heat. At 600 C to 1,000 C, the steel starts to bend.

“The buildings were extremely vulnerable to fire,” he continued. “The information to me seems to be very clear: A lot of energy and very poor design were responsible for the collapse.”

Cahill arrived at Ground Zero weeks after the reports of molten metal at the scene, but his extensive research on why the rubble piles smoldered so long was of interest to controlled-demolition theorists, who believed molten steel in the bottom of the piles provided the heat source. Such was not the case, Cahill said. Instead, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks.

John Gross did deny it in the Austin Q&A session. Yes, the FAQ's that came out have this statement, but it is written off as unimportant, as are many other inconsistencies in their analysis.

Cahill is certainly entitled to his opinion about fuel oil. It does not change what many, many other eyewitnesses with the expertise and credibility to know have to say about the persistance of molten metal in the pile. And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

[beachnut]

Unfortunately, controlled demolition is equally justifiable to gravity driven collapse and theories other than the conventional ones should be explored.

This is where you ignorance of gravity and physics come shining thorough. With zero sounds of explosives, zero detonations, zero evidence, you come up with zero on the side of explosives, and have decided to remain in ignorance of the actual collapse mechanism. You have picked fantasy. What is new? A new person comes and spews Jones fantasy ideas and you prove again you have no real understanding of physics, and gravity to help you. At least you support the new guy who is also a fantasy fan.
I listed all your evidence to date supporting CD.
1.

That was short, and it matches 9/11 truth's. zero

[SDC]

Sdemetri, do you believe that large commercial jets struck WTC 1&2 on the morning of 11 Sept 2001? Let's start with that question.

[Kent1]

John Gross did deny it in the Austin Q&A session. Yes, the FAQ's that came out have this statement, but it is written off as unimportant, as are many other inconsistencies in their analysis.

Cahill is certainly entitled to his opinion about fuel oil. It does not change what many, many other eyewitnesses with the expertise and credibility to know have to say about the persistance of molten metal in the pile. And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

He was asked about motlen steel. Huge pools.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/465090/nist_lead_engineer_questioned_about_9_11_denies_mo lten_metal/

I haven't seen any pictures of these either. Reports of molten steel however, are not uncommon in house fires. 90% of the burned houses in the Oakland hills fire had reports of Molten steel.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf


I don't know of anyone else with the expertise and credibility that says otherwise. Certainly Jones and Ryan do not fall into that area.

[HyJinX]

And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

Well of course it doesn't. Because if it did, you wouldn't be able to continue being a pawn on the chessboard of idiocy.

[ElMondoHummus]

And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

I'm not certain that it's an adequate explanation either, but it's not just some excuse-of-the-minute. It's held by more people than Cahill. Astaneh-Asl, for example, says the same thing (http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html):


As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as "yield strength") in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."...

... "Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."...

... Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he cannot be certain whether a more-traditional building would have survived the smaller fire that would have followed because he is not an expert on fires. Even so, he argues, if the World Trade Center towers had been designed "using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived — it most likely would not have collapsed."


I may not have the expertise to analyze the merits of the argument, but I'm not ready to so easily dismiss it either. I myself believe that it wasn't a building "flaw" or disregard of code that led to the collapses, but rather that it was an unpredictable circumstance. But regardless, there's meat to Cahill's and Astaneh-Asl's arguments that renders them substantive enough to merit consideration. They shouldn't simply be dismissed. Could you expand on what about the argument doesn't hold water with you? That would make the objection more substantive, and not appear as though it's a rejection for convenience's sake.

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not certain that it's an adequate explanation either, but it's not just some excuse-of-the-minute. It's held by more people than Cahill. Astaneh-Asl, for example, says the same thing (http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/06/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html):



I may not have the expertise to analyze the merits of the argument, but I'm not ready to so easily dismiss it either. I myself believe that it wasn't a building "flaw" or disregard of code that led to the collapses, but rather that it was an unpredictable circumstance. But regardless, there's meat to Cahill's and Astaneh-Asl's arguments that renders them substantive enough to merit consideration. They shouldn't simply be dismissed. Could you expand on what about the argument doesn't hold water with you? That would make the objection more substantive, and not appear as though it's a rejection for convenience's sake.

I take issue with some parts of that article. There's nothing in the IBC that prevent designers from using high strength steel in non-seismic regions for example. I'll post comments on it later.

[ferd burfle]

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation.

sdemetri, you said you are a chemist so I would expect you to know the distinction between amount and concentration. 180,000 ppb may be a high concentration but by itself it is not evidence of a "massive amount", expecially when you read the EPA source material and find

"To protect workers at the site, EPA attempted to identify the highest concentration levels of VOCs by taking samples lasting for a few minutes. Some of these "grab samples," taken where smoke plumes were seen at the work site, have shown concentrations up to 4000 times higher than those taken in the surrounding streets."

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/monitoring/benchmarks/voc.htm

So these concentrations in some cases represented peak concentrations measured in as little as a few minutes. Ignoring for a minute that no release of VOCs, regardless of concentration, implies nanowhatever, this breathless interpretation of the data would never have passed muster in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Ferd

PS: and if you read the EPA data further, those concentrations taken in the surrounding streets, as well as the day-long samples, were all below the EPA screening threshold of 20 ppb. If you look closely, you'll find the 18,000 ppb averages are the averages of the peak concentrations shown in the graphs presented in the paper; they are not day-long time-weighted averages.

[T.A.M.]

I apologize for the multiple posts. My browser froze up not showing the posts as going through.

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.

ElMondo's "probably" statement, "Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size conflagration that the Twin Towers did..." elicited my reply, and I stand by it. There have been very large structures that have suffered much larger fires, and didn't react as the Twin Towers with their "not unusual" and much smaller fires.

Dave Rogers, the "calculations ad nauseum" comment is from my POV a lot of singing to the choir.

Be that as it may, you said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple." Absolutely. Very intuitive concept, and I don't argue that. It makes no sense to me when viewing the video of the North Tower collapsing to measure acceleration, and then have you conjure up an hypothesis that on its face contradicts what you just said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate..." Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work. In your argument you have not shown what those forces were in a way that corroborates with many other observations. You are saying MG>F1+F2, the buildings collapsed, and that proves no controlled demolition. I don't see it that way at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

1. Welcome to the forum.
2. Black smoke does not exclusively mean an oxygen starved fire, by a long shot. Your area is chemistry, as you have said, so I know you know yourself that such an argument is a strawman. There are many chemicals, combinations of chemicals, that will produce black smoke when burning.
3. On the floors of the impact zone, as well as floors above and below, there were hundreds of windows broken out, both from the impact, and from the heat of the fires. Yet again the "no windows open" comment" is a strawman, and you know this.
4. No study needs to explain molten metals, as the pile was MORE THAT HOT ENOUGH to make many metals molten. The only reason this is even discussed, is due to the truther cannard that the molten metals were in fact STEEL, which of course, there is little evidence for. That said, it would not surprise me in the least if there was molten STEEL found in that pile...not in the least.

So what I have read from you is what appears to be the musings of a relatively smart man, mixed with a number of truther talking points, that from the rest of your dialogue, I would say are beneath you...and me.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

I take issue with some parts of that article. There's nothing in the IBC that prevent designers from using high strength steel in non-seismic regions for example. I'll post comments on it later.

That's completely fair. Like I said, I don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the strength of the claims. That specific issue is one such thing I would have zero clue about; the article indirectly proposes that such use of such steel is a bad practice, yet as you said, the code doesn't forbid it. So the real substantive question on that point is this: Is the use of such steel a bad practice, regardless of what the code says? And would adherence to the code result in different behavior on 9/11? I'm not necessarily asking you, Newtons Bit, I'm merely pointing out that in genuine, considered criticism, there's room for truly enlightening discussion.

------

And that illuminates a bigger point (sorry to run off on a tangent like this): Real criticism illuminates. False criticism stated with an agenda in mind - in the case of 9/11 Trutherism, the impugnment of the US Government - obsfucates. How many people are still stuck on the notion of steel having to have melted for the towers to collapse? How many people can be led into thinking incorrectly of the military response that day because some conspiracy peddler asked "Why did the planes fly around for 40 minutes without being intercepted"? It's necessary to retail the first narrative in order to build the case for thermite, and the second for the stand down, but it doesn't truly shed light on what really happened that day. Inquiries like Astaneh-Asl's - even if the engineering world ends up falsifying the charges - lead to better understanding of the engineering issues involved. Look at the true, genuinely considered criticisms that have occurred: Arup, Edinburg, Quintiere's statements for example... all those may pose more questions, and in regards to the fireproofing in those specific examples actually contradict NIST's model, but they ultimately build a path towards further illumination. What about conspiracy fantasies does the same thing?

A movie critic - was it the late Gene Siskel? I forget... - once said that the real difference between independent and mainstream movies wasn't the production company, the funding, the director, or anything like that. It was whether the storyline confirmed or challenged the dominant view of whatever subject matter the film was covering. A most independent source of funding for a film with a most un-Hollywood director would not result in an independent film if the storyline confirmed society's views on the subject, whereas the most commercial studio using the most inside-Hollywood director could make an independent film if they chose to challenge how the audience normally looked upon a topic. While incomplete, the definition is useful in separating what truly chooses to exist outside the zeitgeist, and what chooses to flow with it. This framework is very much applicable to conspiracy fantasists and the entire subject of 9/11. Who really challenges existing thought? And who simply chooses to follow the current of the particular zeitgeist? When Astaneh-Asl, for example, questions the view of the towers being properly constructed, he may be doing so within the rigid rules of engineering, and he is doing so from well inside the engineering community, but he's very much offering an illuminating challenge to the dominant mode of thought regarding the towers. Were they in fact truly well built? We're the builders' "10 unusual elements" truly bad practices? Regardless of code, was the choices made in the design of the towers truly bad ones to make? Against those questions, you have the dominant NIST model which exonerates the design. Where lies the truth? Who knows, but the interplay between the positions will shed light on that question.

Now, consider the conspiratorial claims: Thermite. Stand down. Pull it. Claims like these and others pose as though they stand against the dominant paradigm, but do they really? Do such claims that tap into the common feelings of powerlessness in the face of such a large government as the United States's one really challege orthodox thinking? Does tapping into the common mistrust of government really stand as independent thought? Does any of the conspiratorial narrative truly achieve any real state of rebellion? Or are they mere confirmations of the lazier parts of the zeitgeist that says this monster in Washington is all-powerful and all-capable, and willing to do whatever it takes for power/money/influence/forward the "NWO"/etc.? And on top of that, what do conspiratorial claims illuminate? Is it anything original? Does it truly generate genuine scholarship, and really illuminate new considerations inside well known fields? Or is it yet another "confirmation" of government's willingness to act against society, as the zeitgeist says?

In the end, the disappointment I feel towards the conspiracy addicts is not merely in their lack of discriminating thought (although that is certainly a component of it), nor in their abuse of freedom of speech (many "abuse" this right). It is that the energy spent on the faulty narrative ultimately does not challenge or change anything. What are all these arguments we have here, other than bricks in the ediface of the conventional? Even when Christophera, Balsamo in his various sock puppets, Swing Dangler, RedIbis, etc. put forth superficially challenging arguments, what puzzle are they completing other than the conspiratorial one that ultimately says "Government bad"? For all the poses of original thought, what they put forth is every bit as conventional as the arguments we muster; they simply have the flaw of being contextually or outright factually wrong as well. They don't plow new ground; they only tred in the tracks of previous paranoids. And they do nothing to get people to look at anything in any new way. Even those who consider 9/11 an "Inside Job" end up painting a picture no different from that painted by those who looked askance at government for Ruby Ridge, the JFK assasination, Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombings... calling government an antagonist, a contravida, is as old as the history of formal governments, and every bit as established. So what do they accomplish, other than forward a conventional narrative disguised as rebellion?

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.

[Dave Rogers]

Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work.

There's no need to keep repeating that you weren't trained in engineering, because you're shouting it from the rooftops with everything else you say. First of all, the building wasn't "supposedly intact", it had massive damage from the airliner impacts which weakened the structure around the collapse initiation zone. Secondly, the resistance offered by the lower structure was built to resist the static loading of a stationary upper block, not to decelerate and arrest an already falling block. If it isn't clear to you why the latter would require a very much stronger structure, then you need to learn so much more physics than you know already that I simply don't have time to try and teach it to you.

Perhaps, however, you could try this: place a house brick on top of a wine glass, and you'll find that it stays there. Now raise the brick a foot above the glass and drop it, and you'll find that a structure that was strong enough to hold the stationary brick somehow didn't manage to hold it once it got moving. In compliance with the rules of this forum, which prohibit members to advocate others to self-harm, I would advise you to wear safety goggles and protective gloves while doing this.

We can, of course, as you suggest, agree to differ. This will result in a continuation of the status quo, in which the 9-11 attacks are known by the overwhelming majority to have been carried out by al-Qaeda without the complicity of the US government. If you want that situation to change, you'll need to learn enough to present a convincing argument to people who know far better than you do at present what they're talking about. So far, the truth movement has failed abysmally in doing this.

Dave

[Pardalis]

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.


That's very well said, especially that last paragraph^

[ElMondoHummus]

Thanks, man. :D

[pomeroo]

I apologize for the multiple posts. My browser froze up not showing the posts as going through.

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.

ElMondo's "probably" statement, "Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size conflagration that the Twin Towers did..." elicited my reply, and I stand by it. There have been very large structures that have suffered much larger fires, and didn't react as the Twin Towers with their "not unusual" and much smaller fires.

Dave Rogers, the "calculations ad nauseum" comment is from my POV a lot of singing to the choir.

Be that as it may, you said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple." Absolutely. Very intuitive concept, and I don't argue that. It makes no sense to me when viewing the video of the North Tower collapsing to measure acceleration, and then have you conjure up an hypothesis that on its face contradicts what you just said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate..." Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work. In your argument you have not shown what those forces were in a way that corroborates with many other observations. You are saying MG>F1+F2, the buildings collapsed, and that proves no controlled demolition. I don't see it that way at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.


As Mackey is not a man who toots his own horn, I will point to you that he is a NASA engineer and you're fighting way out of your weight class.

[pomeroo]

Permit me to agree with the sentiment expressed by other posters: Frank Greening's thoughts on this paper would be welcome.

[Stellafane]

As Mackey is not a man who toots his own horn, I will point to you that he is a NASA engineer and you're fighting way out of your weight class.

I think it's pretty clear by now that wherever you see the words "hand waving" in this thread, what actually is being said is "stuff that's so far over my head that I can't even begin to comprehend it, so instead of working a little to learn something I'll just see if I can save a little face by attempting to dismiss it with the most transparent of vague insults."