Thermite: Was it there or not?

[MIKILLINI]

No it doesn't...that's the rub. No building in the entire history of this planet has ever been crushed down to the ground by one-tenth of itself as it was in the case of the North Tower on 9/11. Never, ever.

Psst! Hey Bill...Has any building as tall as the WTC towers ever been hit by an airliner? Ever ever?

[bill smith]

Hoffman is nuts on 911. He has the thermite in the ceiling tiles, millions of them with remote detonators. Radio controlled at that. Hoffman is injecting too much thermite, or lots of meth

My own theory was that the concrete floors were sprayed with nano-thermite. Concrete is porous and nano materials are small enough to enter the human cell let alone concrete. When ignited by remote the nano-thermite would almost instantly reach a temperature of up to 5,000 degrees centigrade, boiling whatever water residue was in he concrete and instantly pulverising it, melting the 80 acres of 20mm thick floorpans, and vapourising the 160 acres of rebar reinforcing almost none of which is found in he rubble pile.

....but the ceiling tiles are interesting too.

[bill smith]

Wow, this is ignorance! First, Hoffman quotes indeed from the book, but the book qoutes from the white paper, which you can find in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-2.pdf). Read it up by yourself, it´s Appendix A. Compare to Hoffman. Learn something.

Second, if Hoffman would be "a brilliant researcher" he wouldn´t keep quiet about the fact that the Richard Roth Telegramm is just a copy of the PANY white paper (a fact his own source tells him, cf. my citation here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5044335#post5044335)).

I will leave the discussion for now, Bill. Not only do you lack basic knowledge about your very own sources, also almost everything you state here is pure (and somewhat random) opinion.

Gotta speculate to accumulate Bro...

[beachnut]

Robertson is the man who is responsible for the WTC structure he said the exact words, "preposterous" and "irresponsible" when Jones presented his delusional thermite story.

Robertson explained to Jones the WTC would collapse the way we saw on 911. But Jones just keeps spewing the lies and insanity of thermite.


At 180 mph a 707 Robertson designed for would have 187 pounds of TNT impact. Not very much damage, it would be localized to the exterior, not the core! 600 mph, even Robertson, like me, could calculate the 2200 pounds on of TNT KE impact would damage the core big time! Even a kid in a physics class with some initial conditions could figure this out; do you think Robertson could?! He was the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC! Robertson did the calculations for 180 which were checked after 911 by another independent study and it proves an aircraft impact less than 200 mph would not do significant damage and the fire therefore would not be the problem they were on 911.


The paper is here about the WTC. A real journal.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V-39-2EnergyEfficiency14874.aspx

Download it here
http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=14867

Robertson built the WTC towers; he would be the first person to see anything wrong with the NIST report. He agrees it was a gravity collapse and the delusion of controlled demolition is not supported by practicing engineers who build real buildings.

The fact is thermite is debunked by NIST, and many Universities not by attacking the delusion of thermite but explain what happen to the WTC. This is why the idiots in 911Truthlies can't find the debunking of thermite; it is hidden in reality based scientific studies on the collapse of the WTC.

Warning this post contains real truth, from a real journal; reading and comprehending what is in the journal may destroy your delusions if you are able to comprehend.

[MIKILLINI]

Beachnut...Sweetie...I think we learned here today to properly interpret the statements of DeMartini and Skilling. It was quite eye-opening. There will be no going back.

No surprise there, the twoof debunked house is always a haven of conspiracy theorists, subjects to be misinterpreted and thriving paranoia. Do they have a "bar" there, Bill?

[bill smith]

Psst! Hey Bill...Has any building as tall as the WTC towers ever been hit by an airliner? Ever ever?

It doesn't signify. The aircraft was only the tool that brought about the local damage to the building- and exit stage left.. After that there was only the dynamic of the top one -tenth of the cuilding crushing the intact lower and stronger nine-tenths of the building down flat on the ground by gravity alone.

Let me tell you- that did not happen without help . Nohow.

[MIKILLINI]

It doesn't signify. The aircraft was only the tool that brought about the local damage to the building- and exit stage left.. After that there was only the dynamic of the top one -tenth of the cuilding crushing the intact lower and stronger nine-tenths of the bilding down flat on the ground by gravity alone.

Let me tell you- that did not happen without help . Nohow.

Let me tell you- The Frank Greening you had mentioned a time or two before, had thrown a hypothesis of his own in the mix a couple of years ago.
Frank's main theme was the heat-weakening of steel via Ammonium Perchlorate as the catalyst sprayed on the fire-resistant foam.
His point was the perchlorate would increase the heat to further weaken the steel, causing the collapse, but he never heavily disputed the progressive collapse. He was basing his theory on the analysis of the rubble pile from all chlorinated species found within the pile, including the NY Board Of Health studies of the smoke coming from the rubble.

Another by the name of Max Photon proposed thermite as the catalyst to heat-weaken the steel so that the towers would collapse. He also proposed iron-oxide rust creating mechanisms so that the aluminum from the aircraft's skin would mix with the iron-oxide to create phreato-thermatic explosions ensuring the buildings to collapse. Max never really disputed the progressive collapse either. Max mentioned thermite wasn't needed to demolish the towers, just enough to cause the collapse.

Both Max and Frank believed Jones' hypothesis carried no water because they both were convinced top down explosive demolition would be a huge undertaking in terms of the explosives needed and totally unnecessary in terms of stupid.

So believe what you will Bill, nothing has been compelling or tangible that overshadows the current evidence and numerous investigations already performed. Research requires evidence and there are volumes of reports to look through. Frank and Max did research and tried to make their hypothesis fit the evidence. They did not succeed because the evidence didn't fit their hypothesis.

[bill smith]

Let me tell you- The Frank Greening you had mentioned a time or two before, had thrown a hypothesis of his own in the mix a couple of years ago.
Frank's main theme was the heat-weakening of steel via Ammonium Perchlorate as the catalyst sprayed on the fire-resistant foam.
His point was the perchlorate would increase the heat to further weaken the steel, causing the collapse, but he never heavily disputed the progressive collapse. He was basing his theory on the analysis of the rubble pile from all chlorinated species found within the pile, including the NY Board Of Health studies of the smoke coming from the rubble.

Another by the name of Max Photon proposed thermite as the catalyst to heat-weaken the steel so that the towers would collapse. He also proposed iron-oxide rust creating mechanisms so that the aluminum from the aircraft's skin would mix with the iron-oxide to create phreato-thermatic explosions ensuring the buildings to collapse. Max never really disputed the progressive collapse either. Max mentioned thermite wasn't needed to demolish the towers, just enough to cause the collapse.

Both Max and Frank believed Jones' hypothesis carried no water because they both were convinced top down explosive demolition would be a huge undertaking in terms of the explosives needed and totally unnecessary in terms of stupid.

So believe what you will Bill, nothing has been compelling or tangible that overshadows the current evidence and numerous investigations already performed. Research requires evidence and there are volumes of reports to look through. Frank and Max did research and tried to make their hypothesis fit the evidence. They did not succeed because the evidence didn't fit their hypothesis.

I hink that Frank Greening is actually one of your guys.

'' Max Photon proposed thermite as the catalyst to heat-weaken the steel so that the towers would collapse ''

Can I take it hat this convoluted sentence means that Max said that Thermite brought down the Twin Towers ?.

[twinstead]

Frank Greening has no love for "us guys". He just thinks people like you are morons.

[Justin39640]

'' Max Photon proposed thermite as the catalyst to heat-weaken the steel so that the towers would collapse ''


i can hear richard gage now:
"the thermite only had to get the steel hot enough to weaken it, not melt it. gravity did the rest" :rolleyes:

[Grizzly Bear]

i can hear richard gage now:
"the thermite only had to get the steel hot enough to weaken it, not melt it. gravity did the rest" :rolleyes:

That certainly makes out imaginary conspirators utterly retarded...

[MIKILLINI]

I hink that Frank Greening is actually one of your guys.

'' Max Photon proposed thermite as the catalyst to heat-weaken the steel so that the towers would collapse ''

Can I take it hat this convoluted sentence means that Max said that Thermite brought down the Twin Towers ?.

Frank Greening wasn't "one of our guys" Bill, he posted on here. As I previously mentioned, he came in proposing his perchlorate theory. Frank had genius intelligence but also had a bit of neurotic/psychotic moments.

There is nothing convoluted about that sentence regarding Max Photon. That was his hypothesis verbatim. Thermite used to heat-weaken the steel, not cut steel or vaporize steel, but to heat-weaken in the very same area the airliners crashed into. He believed the airliners were remote controlled to crash in these areas to cover up the heat-weakening of the thermite.
The whole idea was to cause collapse of the buildings and let gravity do the rest, he nor Frank did not dispute the dynamic loads once collapse began. Their theories were soley based on collapse initiation.

[ElMondoHummus]

Frank Greening wasn't "one of our guys" Bill, he posted on here. As I previously mentioned, he came in proposing his perchlorate theory. Frank had genius intelligence but also had a bit of neurotic/psychotic moments.

To be fair, I don't think the perchlorate proposal was one of those. Rather, that was him showing everyone that it's indeed possible to come up with a conspiratorial proposal that actually fits the observed events. I think (this is my own opinion) that he intended it as a scolding that went in both directions: Towards us "NISTians" (his eventual term for us) for not having the imagination to believe that such a proposal could be generated yet stay true to the observations, and towards the conspiracy peddlers for not even trying to refine their proposals against what was known.

Honestly, I think it was a wonderful exercise in logical thought, and I really do not see him as having proposed it seriously. Plus, you gotta admit, it's a far better proposal than anything truthers have come up with, and Greening seems to have done it relatively "off the cuff" too, especially compared with the long, slow, drawn out descent into wrong that Steven Jones is taking.

[Edx]

To be fair, I don't think the perchlorate proposal was one of those. Rather, that was him showing everyone that it's indeed possible to come up with a conspiratorial proposal that actually fits the observed events. I think (this is my own opinion) that he intended it as a scolding that went in both directions: Towards us "NISTians" (his eventual term for us) for not having the imagination to believe that such a proposal could be generated yet stay true to the observations, and towards the conspiracy peddlers for not even trying to refine their proposals against what was known.

Thats what I dont get, why do truthers have to propose the most convoluted and over the top conspiracy? Why is it necessary to fake the plane crashing into the Pentagon? WHy did they use drone aircraft yet train hijackers, yet do it badly that they couldnt even fly a small plane (hani). Why dont they think, Hmmm why not just crash a real plane into the damn building. sigh

[MIKILLINI]

To be fair, I don't think the perchlorate proposal was one of those. Rather, that was him showing everyone that it's indeed possible to come up with a conspiratorial proposal that actually fits the observed events. I think (this is my own opinion) that he intended it as a scolding that went in both directions: Towards us "NISTians" (his eventual term for us) for not having the imagination to believe that such a proposal could be generated yet stay true to the observations, and towards the conspiracy peddlers for not even trying to refine their proposals against what was known.

Honestly, I think it was a wonderful exercise in logical thought, and I really do not see him as having proposed it seriously. Plus, you gotta admit, it's a far better proposal than anything truthers have come up with, and Greening seems to have done it relatively "off the cuff" too, especially compared with the long, slow, drawn out descent into wrong that Steven Jones is taking.

Thanks for expanding on that Elmondo and you are correct about Frank. He did propose this to everyone to see, including Jones, and no, it wasn't during one of his episode moments. It certainly was a more intriguing proposal than demolition.

[triforcharity]

Beachnut, I've got some pretty strong opinions when it comes to foreign policy, not all of which I'll share here.

I think 9/11 was the result of many, many events over decades which culminated in an attack by islamic extremists against the idea of 'America'.

In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support the Thermite hypothesis. The fires underneath the towers were strangely hot, many first-responders witnessed molten metals, strange ejections from the south tower impact zone....things like this can not be immediately discarded. However, there are logical explanations for anomalies, and I believe that an event as large as the collapses of the 3 WTC towers would create many anomalies.

The fires underneath the towers were not strange in any sort of the word, at least not to the educated. Many first responders did report seeing molten metal, sure. But, with the amount of aluminum that was contained in the tower it was not suprising. At all.

I appllaud the fact that you did get some things correct. The 19 hijackers, the anomalies that would be expected with something this. At least you can understand that much, for that you have a little bit of respect from me. For now.

[BigAl]

The fires underneath the towers were not strange in any sort of the word, at least not to the educated. Many first responders did report seeing molten metal, sure. But, with the amount of aluminum that was contained in the tower it was not suprising. At all.

I appllaud the fact that you did get some things correct. The 19 hijackers, the anomalies that would be expected with something this. At least you can understand that much, for that you have a little bit of respect from me. For now.

He also says "In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support the Thermite hypothesis".

There's hope for him.

[DavidJames]

I think 9/11 was the result of many, many events over decades which culminated in an attack by islamic extremists against the idea of 'America'.In general, I tend to agree. Sadly, some will see your comment and claim what your doing is making excuses for them or worse, trying to justify the terrorism. I think that's nonsense. It was cowardly terrorism regardless if they felt if it was justified.In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to support the Thermite hypothesis.I agree and it looks like I may have judged you to quickly, I apologize. As for the rest or your comments in that post, I agree with triforcharity.

[CHF]

After that there was only the dynamic of the top one -tenth of the cuilding crushing the intact lower and stronger nine-tenths of the building down flat on the ground by gravity alone.

Cleverly phrased but stupid as hell.

You're trying to make it sound odd that 10% of a building could destroy the other 90% - and to the morons in the TM it does sound odd, but only if you pretend that the top mass didn't strike the rest of the building floor-by-floor.

So the question you should be asking is: could the dynamic weight of the top sections (50,000 and 120,000 tons respectively) smash through each floor it encountered?

Yes it could. In a fraction of a second.

[triforcharity]

Phew, I was wondering how much more it would take to get Macky to ignore me. You failed to provide any legitimate answers anyhow....just the same Duhbunker canned lines....

...with regards to your disposition; if you can't take it Ryan, don't dish it out.

Beachnut and Trutherslie, could you ignore me as well?

I posted a response to you just a little while ago, and the respect that you HAD earned from me is vaporized, and I used thermite to do it.....

Anyway, you ask for a concensus from us about why we think that Jones is wrong. I have read every page of this thread, and you have been in attack mode for most of it. You ask for us to tell you why we think Jones' paper is wrong. The answer was given. You asked why we think Jones' lied/misrepresented/etc, in his papers. That answer can only be an opinion, as the fact of the matter cannot be provided without asking Jones. He will continue to lie/misrepresent his answer to that, because (I believe) that if he did, the cash flow would evaporate in a matter of minutes. Quicker than if you lit it on fire with thermite.

I was there that day, and saw nothing that I thought was suspicious. NOTHING. I spent the next 3 months, day and night, even my days off, searching that rubble for victims. I know, for a fact, that I did not find any body parts that looked out of the ordinary. I mean, other than the fact that their arm was not attached to the rest of their body. I also found NOTHING else out of the ordinary, again, other than the fact that a building that I spent many years working in and within sight of was laying on the ground in a huge pile. That I found out of the ordinary.

Please, if you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, please do. But, as of now, I do not see that happening. But, I am only speculating.

[triforcharity]

PS. His office was on the 88th floor of the North Tower. Was he in the South Towr when he called the guys to the 78th floor where the impact had been ? Where the fireman said (on tape) ' a few isolated pockets of fire '...'We can knock them down with two lines '

Aparently you do not understand the amount of water that 2 lines can produce. I have posted this before, not sure where, but I might take the time to find it here in a few minutes. Its good. Its even got links.

BTW, you couldn't see the entire floor from one vantage point. Maybe only half. But, you forgot to mention the rest of that quote. Something about Multiple dead persons?? Remember that?? That tells something about the conditions on that floor.

[triforcharity]

My own theory was that the concrete floors were sprayed with nano-thermite. Concrete is porous and nano materials are small enough to enter the human cell let alone concrete. When ignited by remote the nano-thermite would almost instantly reach a temperature of up to 5,000 degrees centigrade, boiling whatever water residue was in he concrete and instantly pulverising it, melting the 80 acres of 20mm thick floorpans, and vapourising the 160 acres of rebar reinforcing almost none of which is found in he rubble pile.

....but the ceiling tiles are interesting too.

Problem #1- Radio controls don't work in a tower surrounded by aluminum. Many times has this been documented. I can tell you from experience, above floor 20 or so, no radio worked.

[Edx]

Problem #1- Radio controls don't work in a tower surrounded by aluminum. Many times has this been documented. I can tell you from experience, above floor 20 or so, no radio worked.


Out of interest, where was he when he (I forgot his name) said he could knock down the fires on floor 78 with "a couple of lines"?

[MIKILLINI]

Cleverly phrased but stupid as hell.

You're trying to make it sound odd that 10% of a building could destroy the other 90% - and to the morons in the TM it does sound odd, but only if you pretend that the top mass didn't strike the rest of the building floor-by-floor.

So the question you should be asking is: could the dynamic weight of the top sections (50,000 and 120,000 tons respectively) smash through each floor it encountered?

Yes it could. In a fraction of a second.

Repeatedly, this gets pointed out to them. Bill and his guru Heiwa are convinced the top section should have bounced or the collapse arrested by friction from each successive floor slowing it down until full stop after just a few floors.

They're more in static load evaluation, not dynamic.

[ElMondoHummus]

Aparently you do not understand the amount of water that 2 lines can produce. I have posted this before, not sure where, but I might take the time to find it here in a few minutes. Its good. Its even got links.


I don't think this is what you were talking about, but another firefighter had worked it out:
Part of my paper, figured you guys might like this.

"Chief Palmer reports on the 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones, we've got isolated pockets of fire, we're gonna need at least two hand lines up there"

As most you know that the bulk of the fire was above the 78th floor and I won't get into much detail about that, Rather I am going to get into the stand pipe operations and why only two hand lines would have been needed to knock down the fire the 78th floor.

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.


To truly judge the fires Palmer saw, we must realize the following two things: He also asked for two "engines" (i.e. "Engine Companies"), and he was referring to isolated pockets on the lowest, least involved floors in the tower he was in. So those were the smallest that he saw, and he still requested two entire engine companies to the task.

[ElMondoHummus]

Out of interest, where was he when he (I forgot his name) said he could knock down the fires on floor 78 with "a couple of lines"?

It was Chief Orio Palmer. He was documented to have been in the South Tower, and I think he was in a stairwell; someone who knows for certain can correct me on that.

[Skeptic]

Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminium. Steven Jones has found evidence that iron, aluminium and oxygen were present in dust from the WTC. Since the building was made of iron and aluminium and surrounded by oxygen, Jones's claim that these can only be from thermite is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bit shaky.

It was a secret atom bomb that brought down the towers.

Atoms were found in the wreckage, after all.

[LashL]

Chief Palmer was talking solely about a couple of isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor of the south tower when he said that they should be able to knock down those isolated pockets with two lines. Years ago, I posted about the size of fires that could be 'knocked down with two lines' (they're huge in relative terms) and about what 'isolated pockets of fire' means in firefighter parlance - i.e. pockets of fire separate from the main (and larger) body of fire.

By the time that Chief Palmer reached the 78th floor, it was utterly devastated, and, as he reported, there were multiple dead people there (numerous 10-45 Code Ones) as a result of the fact that that particular floor had been the bottom of the impact zone of the aircraft and many, many people were killed as a result of the impact and the enormous fire that erupted instantaneously, not to mention that it was a skylobby floor. From his vantage point, he could only see a certain portion of the floor, of course, and there was probably not much left to burn (relatively speaking) in that area on 78 by the time that Chief Palmer noted those pockets of fire on that floor, as it had been pretty devastated already. Still, requiring two lines to knock down two isolated pockets of fire is a huge deal in normal circumstances, and was compounded tenfold by the fact that it was on the 78th floor of a building whose standpipes had been compromised and/or destroyed by the impact of a large airliner, and where much larger fires burned above.

What tinhatters do not mention is that Chief Palmer also noted the much larger body of fire above, and that he sent some of the firefighters who were there with him on 78 up to the 79th floor to investigate further, but then the tower collapsed.

The bottom line is that anyone who in 2009 still tosses out the stupid canard that there were no large fires raging in the building, and anyone who still quotes Chief Palmer's comment about the fires on the 78th floor in support of that ridiculous canard are either (a) deliberately dishonest; (b) completely delusional; (c) impervious to facts and evidence; or (d) indifferent to facts and evidence.

[ElMondoHummus]

It was a secret atom bomb that brought down the towers.

Atoms were found in the wreckage, after all.

Your kung fu is superior. I bow to you now. http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=157&pictureid=1528

[Dave Rogers]

Carlitos, read through the last couple pages in this thread and you'll find my 9/11 event synopsis.

Ah, the RedIbis gambit: Don't actually make any claims, but insist incessantly that you have. The next step, ImANiceGuy, is to start posting links to previous posts of yours that don't make any claim, while saying "I explained my claims in full in this post".

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

No it doesn't...that's the rub. No building in the entire history of this planet has ever been crushed down to the ground by one-tenth of itself as it was in the case of the North Tower on 9/11. Never, ever.

Except Bailey's Crossing.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

My own theory was that the concrete floors were sprayed with nano-thermite. Concrete is porous and nano materials are small enough to enter the human cell let alone concrete. When ignited by remote the nano-thermite would almost instantly reach a temperature of up to 5,000 degrees centigrade, boiling whatever water residue was in he concrete and instantly pulverising it, melting the 80 acres of 20mm thick floorpans, and vapourising the 160 acres of rebar reinforcing almost none of which is found in he rubble pile.

Check your thermodynamics. Your scenario requires that the concrete contained more thermite than concrete.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Carlitos, read through the last couple pages in this thread and you'll find my 9/11 event synopsis.

Trutherslie, I'm not as pathetic as Macky, I won't put you on ignore. However, you nonsensical ramblings are ineffective and frustrating. Macky insulted me several times by making absurd insinuations, and you deny this by calling me a child, despite the fact that I vigorously denied Thermite hypotheses.

You guys jumped all over me because you pre-determined that I was in favor of CD scenarios. How wrong some of you were(never to be admitted of course eh Macky?)

Edit: Alienentity, my questions followed the same linear form that a typical online 9/11 thermite debate would. I take exception to all the insults......why shouldn't I?

Oh poor widdle twoof.

No we jumped all over you because we KNEW you were a twoof from your second posting.

[Locknar]

Given the general and continued issues with this thread, it has been set to Moderated Status for now.

[TruthersLie]

Out of interest, where was he when he (I forgot his name) said he could knock down the fires on floor 78 with "a couple of lines"?

edx.

He was on the 78th floor at the bottom corner of the of the impact zone.

[aggle-rithm]

The plane impacted....there was local damage...some fires burned. Then over an hour later the building collapsed with the top one-tenth crushing the absolutely intact bottom nine-tenths down level with the ground...by gravity alone.

No way.

Some fires burned, you say.

Sounds like it wasn't very serious. Sounds like, if you were a person on one of the floors above the impact, you could easily escape the flames. Each floor had a huge amount of space to move around in, and you could always move to another floor if things got too hot.

So why did so many people prefer to jump to their deaths instead of simply moving away from these tiny little flames? Were they "in on it" too?


Think for a moment what it would take to make YOU throw yourself willingly off a 110 story building.

[bill smith]

Some fires burned, you say.

Sounds like it wasn't very serious. Sounds like, if you were a person on one of the floors above the impact, you could easily escape the flames. Each floor had a huge amount of space to move around in, and you could always move to another floor if things got too hot.

So why did so many people prefer to jump to their deaths instead of simply moving away from these tiny little flames? Were they "in on it" too?


Think for a moment what it would take to make YOU throw yourself willingly off a 110 story building.

I coulld easily argue that the flams were large while the jet fuel burned off and peope jumped to their deaths. A little later when the flames died down people were standing around and looking out of the hole.

But it doesn't really matter all that much. we know the area that had fire- we can see it on the videos. Even if those floors had burned like an inferno it doesn't change the dynmic of the top one-enth cushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the building down flat on the ground.

This has never happened to any buildng on this planet in the entire recorded history of the world. in fact no oblect, big or small has ever been crushed down flat on the ground by the top one-tenth of itself by gravity alone..

[triforcharity]

Out of interest, where was he when he (I forgot his name) said he could knock down the fires on floor 78 with "a couple of lines"?

This was before any building collapsed, and we had the repeater turned on. So, radios would work above that floor, but only on certain frequencies. There were some days when I went into that tower, and couldn't even get a radio signal above the 3rd floor before the repeater was turned on.

But, without that repeater, nothing worked. Especially low-voltage type transmitters.

[triforcharity]

Out of interest, where was he when he (I forgot his name) said he could knock down the fires on floor 78 with "a couple of lines"?

This was said before the tower collapsed. The repeater was on and working, so he might have been on the 78th floor. But, it might have been lower in the tower and he was just relaying a message. Who knows.

But, I can tell you, without that repeater turned on, there were no radio transmissions above about the 20th floor.

[triforcharity]

I don't think this is what you were talking about, but another firefighter had worked it out:


To truly judge the fires Palmer saw, we must realize the following two things: He also asked for two "engines" (i.e. "Engine Companies"), and he was referring to isolated pockets on the lowest, least involved floors in the tower he was in. So those were the smallest that he saw, and he still requested two entire engine companies to the task.

Nah, I did one that was a little easier to read, but I did the math, and 338 is correct. That is a TREMENDOUS amount of water.

[leftysergeant]

This has never happened to any buildng on this planet in the entire recorded history of the world. in fact no oblect, big or small has ever been crushed down flat on the ground by the top one-tenth of itself by gravity alone..

That would be a rational argument, had any building ever had the top 10th of itself dropped on the lower 9/10.

And it matters little if people could stand around the up-wind hole in a burning building. There was fire down-wind.

Why do you think tyhey were not trying to jump down the space between floors or rapel down the broken stairways with emergency fire hoses?

[aggle-rithm]

I coulld easily argue that the flams were large while the jet fuel burned off and peope jumped to their deaths. A little later when the flames died down people were standing around and looking out of the hole.


What would make the fire stop burning after the jet fuel burned off? There was plenty of fuel in that building. I guarantee you there were many tons of printer paper there, hundreds of computers with plastic components, acres of carpeting, and many other combustible materials.

I remember a fireman who used to come to my elementary school when I was a boy, teaching us fire safety. One year he told the story of a fire-proof house, made entirely of concrete and steel. When the contents inside the house caught fire, the inferno was so intense that the firefighters, upon arrival, could only watch it collapse.

I learned that in elementary school. Perhaps you were sick that day?


But it doesn't really matter all that much. we know the area that had fire- we can see it on the videos. Even if those floors had burned like an inferno it doesn't change the dynmic of the top one-enth cushing the lower and stronger nine-tenths of the building down flat on the ground.

This has never happened to any buildng on this planet in the entire recorded history of the world. in fact no oblect, big or small has ever been crushed down flat on the ground by the top one-tenth of itself by gravity alone..

This is demonstrably untrue. You've been given so many examples of this that I won't bother bringing them up again.

[A W Smith]

Here is a perfect example of the "Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories,"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813

You should read bck a few pages Twinstead. For your convenience I am reposting post #308 here.


'' Suppse for a moment that you were Steven Jones and his team ? Then further suppose that you sent your samples off to Princeton or somewhere equally prestigeous for testing ?

But then you stop and think whether a place like Princeton might not be part of the intelligentsia...the American elite ? It's undeniably true that they would be very vulnerable to a call, say from the Whitehouse asking for a favour wouldn't you say ?

Jones would abslutely NOT need Princeton University saying that they had found no unreacted thermite in the WTC dust.

Are you getting the point ? ''

[ImANiceGuy]

and then we come full circle back to the Thermite claim and Dr. Jones(I always think of Indy)....

Let me just remind you that a good scientific skeptic should not be negative, but agnostic; so I appreciate dispassionate replies.

When we last left off, it seemed as though the general JREF skeptic's position is that Dr.Jones found paint(kaolinte; demonstrated by Sunstealer) and then lied about his findings either purposefully, or blissfully-ignorantly to further his agenda.

I provided the popular Truther reply that the MEK testing disproves the paint theory; however, Mackey was kind enough to point out that MEK testing is not the proper way to go about testing samples of paint, and that this was further proof of Jones' appeal to ignorance.

I looked into this, and firstly let me tell you it is not easy to sort through all the info, as the subject matter evoxes strong emotion, and consequently, biased information. Personally, everything I read must be cross-checked, sourced and referenced before I consider accepting it, conditionally, as fact.
This is why I prefer to ask the questions myself, rather then have to sort through 100's of pages of threads.....and believe me, I read through many more old threads then some people.

I have a couple questions;

How does the "paint" explanation configure with the DSC testing? Are the DSC results completey rejected because the test was not performed in an inert atmosphere? Therm-anything would have its oxidizer bonded within its structure, and therefore not need oxygen to ignite, correct?

[triforcharity]

Imaniceguy,

I am not a scientist, but let me try to play one for just a second.

Thermite itself does not need a supply of oxygen to burn, as it produces its own. HOWEVER, how do you light it if there is no oxygen?? Matches, flares, lighters, etc all need some kind of oxygen to work. IIRC, thermite is NOT explosive, so just a spark will not due.

I could be wrong though. I doubt it.

[Leviath]

Are the DSC results completey rejected because the test was not performed in an inert atmosphere?
Partly, yes. The chips consisted of a notable amount of an unknown carbon compound. Such a compund will ignite at elevated temperatures in an atmosphere containing oxygen. Since the carbon compound is unknown it is quite difficult to tell exactly what ignites in this test.

Therm-anything would have its oxidizer bonded within its structure, and therefore not need oxygen to ignite, correct?
Correct. So one can only speculate why Jones et al didn't perform this test in inert atmosphere in the first place.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned much is the heating rate which is, in my opinion, too rapid. I can elaborate on this later if there's interest.

[lapman]

Partly, yes. The chips consisted of a notable amount of an unknown carbon compound. Such a compund will ignite at elevated temperatures in an atmosphere containing oxygen. Since the carbon compound is unknown it is quite difficult to tell exactly what ignites in this test.


Correct. So one can only speculate why Jones et al didn't perform this test in inert atmosphere in the first place.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned much is the heating rate which is, in my opinion, too rapid. I can elaborate on this later if there's interest.
IIRC, they did not have any actual samples of nanothermite to perform a comparison. The same goes with the actual paint used on the tower steel. IMHO, that destroys the credibility of the study.

[Dave Rogers]

How does the "paint" explanation configure with the DSC testing? Are the DSC results completey rejected because the test was not performed in an inert atmosphere? Therm-anything would have its oxidizer bonded within its structure, and therefore not need oxygen to ignite, correct?

The presence of oxygen in the DSC tests is, in itself, a failure of technique. If an exotherm were observed in the absence of oxygen, that would suggest a thermite reaction, because it would eliminate the possibility of combustion using atmospheric oxygen. Therefore, we can reject the assertion that the results prove the presence of a thermite reaction, although they don't disprove it.

However, it gets even worse when we look at the energy yield of the reaction. Harrit et al claim that their chips produce more energy per unit mass than thermite, and this mind you on chips that appear to be at least part inert. We know, therefore, that some of the energy released by these chips is not from a thermite reaction, and combustion in ambient oxygen is the only likely additional energy source. Reasoning a little further, therefore, we know for certain that these chips are burning in oxygen and hence releasing energy, whereas we don't know for certain that there is a thermite reaction present. Since we would expect the energy density of a combustion reaction to be typically around ten times that of a thermite reaction (Wikipedia will give some typical values to back this up), there is ample energy in the known source to account for all the energy released.

Therefore, we know that combustion must be taking place, and we know that combustion is easily capable of supplying all the energy released. Although this still doesn't exclude the possibility of a thermite reaction taking place as well, it means that the results cannot be considered in any way to give positive evidence for a thermite reaction.

Dave

[TjW]

Partly, yes. The chips consisted of a notable amount of an unknown carbon compound. Such a compund will ignite at elevated temperatures in an atmosphere containing oxygen. Since the carbon compound is unknown it is quite difficult to tell exactly what ignites in this test.


Correct. So one can only speculate why Jones et al didn't perform this test in inert atmosphere in the first place.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned much is the heating rate which is, in my opinion, too rapid. I can elaborate on this later if there's interest.

I suspect it was cargo-cult science.

I think he read some journal articles on nano-thermite, and they did their tests in air, so he did his tests in air.

Now, if what you're doing is using exactly the same compound, and varying only the particle size, while looking for a change in the rate of reaction, doing the reaction in air is reasonable. It's a comparison, after all, and not an absolute value you're looking at, and you don't have the bother of maintaining the inert atmosphere.

But using that procedure to characterize an unknown compound seems ludicrous.

[alienentity]

and then we come full circle back to the Thermite claim and Dr. Jones(I always think of Indy)....

Let me just remind you that a good scientific skeptic should not be negative, but agnostic; so I appreciate dispassionate replies.

When we last left off, it seemed as though the general JREF skeptic's position is that Dr.Jones found paint(kaolinte; demonstrated by Sunstealer) and then lied about his findings either purposefully, or blissfully-ignorantly to further his agenda.

I provided the popular Truther reply that the MEK testing disproves the paint theory; however, Mackey was kind enough to point out that MEK testing is not the proper way to go about testing samples of paint, and that this was further proof of Jones' appeal to ignorance.

I looked into this, and firstly let me tell you it is not easy to sort through all the info, as the subject matter evoxes strong emotion, and consequently, biased information. Personally, everything I read must be cross-checked, sourced and referenced before I consider accepting it, conditionally, as fact.
This is why I prefer to ask the questions myself, rather then have to sort through 100's of pages of threads.....and believe me, I read through many more old threads then some people.

I have a couple questions;

How does the "paint" explanation configure with the DSC testing? Are the DSC results completey rejected because the test was not performed in an inert atmosphere? Therm-anything would have its oxidizer bonded within its structure, and therefore not need oxygen to ignite, correct?

It so happens I've got this page open, and have been going back and reading it. It's a blog titled "Active Thermitic Material" claimed in Ground Zero dust may not be thermitic at all'
by Enrico Manieri - Henry62

You might find it useful:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

One of the weaknesses of the DSC is, as others have mentioned, the fact that the material produces far too much energy. It is known that an ideal (perfect) combustion of thermite would produce 3.9kJ/g of energy.
But the chips produced as much as 7.5 kJ/g!! This is very good evidence that it was the carbon-based (organic) 'binder' material which was burning in air.

It's always bugged me that the Jones/Harrit method is not capable of determining what the organic binder is, nor the gray layer. Shouldn't it have been of paramount importance to determine the composition of those materials before jumping to a conclusion about the chips?

It just appears that they were in a rush to publish a finding of thermite, so they cut some corners that they shouldn't have. I strongly suspect that their claims will eventually be falsified when further data are available.

[Pantaz]

...Thermite itself does not need a supply of oxygen to burn, as it produces its own. HOWEVER, how do you light it if there is no oxygen?? Matches, flares, lighters, etc all need some kind of oxygen to work. IIRC, thermite is NOT explosive, so just a spark will not due. ...

I imagine some type of electric arc or hot-wire (e.g., tungsten) would suffice.

[TruthersLie]

and then we come full circle back to the Thermite claim and Dr. Jones(I always think of Indy)....

Let me just remind you that a good scientific skeptic should not be negative, but agnostic; so I appreciate dispassionate replies.

When we last left off, it seemed as though the general JREF skeptic's position is that Dr.Jones found paint(kaolinte; demonstrated by Sunstealer) and then lied about his findings either purposefully, or blissfully-ignorantly to further his agenda.

I provided the popular Truther reply that the MEK testing disproves the paint theory; however, Mackey was kind enough to point out that MEK testing is not the proper way to go about testing samples of paint, and that this was further proof of Jones' appeal to ignorance.

I looked into this, and firstly let me tell you it is not easy to sort through all the info, as the subject matter evoxes strong emotion, and consequently, biased information. Personally, everything I read must be cross-checked, sourced and referenced before I consider accepting it, conditionally, as fact.
This is why I prefer to ask the questions myself, rather then have to sort through 100's of pages of threads.....and believe me, I read through many more old threads then some people.

I have a couple questions;

How does the "paint" explanation configure with the DSC testing? Are the DSC results completey rejected because the test was not performed in an inert atmosphere? Therm-anything would have its oxidizer bonded within its structure, and therefore not need oxygen to ignite, correct?

That is one of over 20 methodological errors in this "paper" (snicker). Right there with that many methodological errors, it invalidates any conclusions from the "paper." (snicker)

I don't have to go any further. Give me a "paper" (snicker) riddled with methodological errors, and that tries to compare two DIFFERENT spectographs and to equate them together when they are different, the "paper" (snicker) gets filed in the circular bin.

[Scott Sommers]

I just discovered that Texas Tech University, Department of Mechanical Engineering has a combustion lab. Researchers there have published a large number of papers about thermite combustion
http://www.me.ttu.edu/ME/Research/CombustionLab/Publications

All you Truth folk, take a look at this. If Jones really did have something, this is what his publication record should look like. In fact, commentary from the people publishing these papers would certainly settle any of the problems he's having now with the credability of his current publications. Ask him or his friend Gage about this. Why don't they have the same credability as the authours of these papers? Why is there no one else who does research on thermite or nano-combustion standing up to support them? There's not even one other person from outside their community. You can't say that his research has been peer-reviewed but no one will stand up to support it.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Seriously, anyone out there has real questions about peer-review and why Jones is not it, go ahead and ask.