Thermite: Was it there or not?

[Caper]

I keep hearing this claim trotted out.... Thermite was found in the dust... or at the base.... or where ever. I've been hearing it alot lately. I'm pretty sure its not true. What's the orgin of the claim and is there any truth?

[KJC]

Thermite is soooo 2006. Get with the times.. it's nano-thermite now.

[dtugg]

What's the orgin of the claim

Steven Jones made it up. He got fired from BYU over it.


and is there any truth?

No.

[Dave Rogers]

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. Since thermite can't be used to demolish buildings, of course, it's all about as relevant as whether Limburger cheese was present in the Twin Towers.

There are several threads on all this. Searching on "Niels Harrit", "Steven Jones" and "nano-thermite" may be a good start.

Dave

[alienentity]

Yeah, what Dave said.

Here are two of the main threads on the subject at this forum:

The original
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4583433#post4583433

and the moderated followup

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017&page=2

There is a truly excellent examination by sunstealer on the second.

A majority of truthers will tell you that the verdict is in, and it's proven to be nanothermite, but I think that's really jumping the gun. Jones et al. have not gotten to that point yet, despite their proclamations.

Personally, there are a few things that stand out to me, and a few questions still unanswered.
1) Jones and Harrit still have not identified the organic binder in the red chips. This is very important, because the chips produce more energy than thermite actually can. This is a product of energy density - ordinary paper, for example, releases far more energy than thermite, although not the same way. And it requires oxygen to burn, whereas thermite doesn't.

The ED of thermite can be calculated once you know the ingredients. Whatever those chips are, many produce too much energy. What are they? I don't know. Nobody does.

Also, the Jones boys don't know what the grey material is either. So they've just filling in blanks without really knowing. You see, they haven't ever actually tested any known nanothermite samples from any government labs, like the military research facilities.
They've also not had even one person with work experience in any of the government labs they allege the chips came from.
Those are big problems - there are too many unknowns to come to firm conclusions.

There are many other important obstacles to the theory of nanothermite, which I won't get into here. Wife's just put on a movie.

Later

[~enigma~]

Did you know that they found arsenic at the WTC because someone brought a chicken sandwich to work for lunch on 9/11...IOW, thermite is the epitome of truther stupidity.

[Thunder]

Once the independent analysis from Princeton, Cornell, MIT, and CalTech come out, proving that nano-thermite was in the WTC dust.......we are all toast!!!

=)

[tfk]

Steven Jones made it up. He got fired from BYU over it.


DT,

I'd disagree just slightly.

IMO, he didn't get fired over being wrong. Or over "making this up". (He also claims that he did not get fired. He claims that he & BYU reached "an agreement".)

Lots of professors publish lots of things that are completely wrong. And live to teach another day.

He was shown the door at BYU for subverting the academic process and, following in the embarrassing footsteps of Fleischmann & Pons, dabbling in "science by press conference".

And refusing to stop, for becoming a public embarrassment to the university, when he became notorious for it.

Even after he had released his first papers on the subject, if he'd retreated to his lab, done his science right, tried to get it reviewed & published, I believe that he would still be there. A small time kook, but still at the university.

It ain't easy to can a tenured professor.

Tom

[Justin39640]

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. Since thermite can't be used to demolish buildings, of course, it's all about as relevant as whether Limburger cheese was present in the Twin Towers.

There are several threads on all this. Searching on "Niels Harrit", "Steven Jones" and "nano-thermite" may be a good start.

Dave

i would bet good money that there was infact more Limburger cheese than nanothermite in the towers (because of the restaurants in there)

[WUBRINY63]

i would bet good money that there was infact more Limburger cheese than nanothermite in the towers (because of the restaurants in there)

Well being that the crime scene was majorly tampered with then I guess betting is the best you can do at this point. How convenient for you and your story about 9/11. So I guess the debunking of Steven Jones at this point is "All the physical evidence has been destroyed so you can't prove anything twoofer! nah nah nah na nah". Very good.

[dtugg]

Hey, HI, how long do you think you'll last this time?

[WUBRINY63]

Hey, HI, how long do you think you'll last this time?

Hello yourself????

[dtugg]

You're not doing a very good job of hiding it. I guess it will be interesting to see how long before you get banned again.

[Justin39640]

Well being that the crime scene was majorly tampered with then I guess betting is the best you can do at this point. How convenient for you and your story about 9/11. So I guess the debunking of Steven Jones at this point is "All the physical evidence has been destroyed so you can't prove anything twoofer! nah nah nah na nah". Very good.

if it was tempered with i guess you cant trust what jones and co found either
can you?

Hey, HI, how long do you think you'll last this time?

lol

[TexasJack]

You're not doing a very good job of hiding it. I guess it will be interesting to see how long before you get banned again.

It least we won't see his obnoxious double spacing, unless he wants a quick exit.

[alienentity]

i would bet good money that there was infact more Limburger cheese than nanothermite in the towers (because of the restaurants in there)

I'd bet there was as much Venezuelan Beaver Cheese as nanothermite in the towers.:D

[Dave Rogers]

Well being that the crime scene was majorly tampered with then I guess betting is the best you can do at this point. How convenient for you and your story about 9/11. So I guess the debunking of Steven Jones at this point is "All the physical evidence has been destroyed so you can't prove anything twoofer! nah nah nah na nah". Very good.

No, the debunking of Steven Jones is that his results don;t support his conclusions - in fact, they contradict them - and that, insofar as he has advanced any kind of hypothesis, it is absurd in that he's either postulating properties that it doesn't have or postulating an obviously unnecessary use for it, one incidentally that contradicts clearly recorded documentary evidence and physical evidence.

Dave

[DGM]

No, the debunking of Steven Jones is that his results don;t support his conclusions - in fact, they contradict them - and that, insofar as he has advanced any kind of hypothesis, it is absurd in that he's either postulating properties that it doesn't have or postulating an obviously unnecessary use for it, one incidentally that contradicts clearly recorded documentary evidence and physical evidence.

Dave
I just love an intellectual "dope slap":D The funny part is they have no clue it ever happened. Thanks Dave!

[beachnut]

I keep hearing this claim trotted out.... Thermite was found in the dust... or at the base.... or where ever. I've been hearing it alot lately. I'm pretty sure its not true. What's the orgin of the claim and is there any truth?

Dr Jones made this up 4 years after 911. From a letter Jones did when his insanity on 911 started on 9.16.05.
6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports. Thermite reactions can be seen on youtube; it is over quickly and the iron becomes solid quickly, there is no molten metal flowing in the basements. Jones made up thermite on 9.16.05 and always makes up a new smoking or loaded gun evidence stories to keep his insane idea alive in the minds of the gullible and hard core conspiracy theorists.

Jones new claim is the dust has thermite in it. Then he burns the fake thermite he has and it does not release the right amount of heat; this is chemistry so his delusional thermite claim was a failure and not the "loaded gun" he needs to earn his Pulitzer Prize exposing 911.

The giant problem with Jones insanity; there was zero thermite products found in the WTC pile. Zero. No thermite on the steel, no thermite cuts, no piles of thermite in the ruble pile. Thermite would be one of the easiest things to find in the WTC and it was not there.

[Crazytimes]

Well being that the crime scene was majorly tampered with then I guess betting is the best you can do at this point. How convenient for you and your story about 9/11. So I guess the debunking of Steven Jones at this point is "All the physical evidence has been destroyed so you can't prove anything twoofer! nah nah nah na nah". Very good.

Do you have any idea how stupid this is ?

[TheDaver]

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. Since thermite can't be used to demolish buildings, of course, it's all about as relevant as whether Limburger cheese was present in the Twin Towers.

There are several threads on all this. Searching on "Niels Harrit", "Steven Jones" and "nano-thermite" may be a good start.

Dave
I like to put it this way:

When you find water in your bathroom sink, the rational explanation is that somebody was running the tap, not that they were burning hydrogen.

[DGM]

I like to put it this way:

When you find water in your bathroom sink, the rational explanation is that somebody was running the tap, not that they were burning hydrogen.
Yeah but, Who opened the faucet? Who plugged the drain? Was this person some how connected somehow to someone that knows someone that could be connected to the NWO? Your not thinking things though enough.:duck:

[Myriad]

Yeah but, Who opened the faucet? Who plugged the drain? Was this person some how connected somehow to someone that knows someone that could be connected to the NWO? Your not thinking things though enough.:duck:


We already know plumbing is a carefully planned interconnected web that reaches into all our homes, even into our very kitchens and bathrooms. It starts at the very top and if you follow it long enough, it always leads right to the sewer.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ImANiceGuy]

well, it seems the duhbunkers can't get their stories straight either...

(fair moniker for any of you using the term Twoofer;basically the same person, just blind to opposing information)


...but on JREF any post will get a pass if it serves to shoot down a "conspiracy theory".

Is Jones' thermite..............................?

A) A natural product from the collapse and ensuing fires

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.

B) Unknown

The ED of thermite can be calculated once you know the ingredients. Whatever those chips are, many produce too much energy. What are they? I don't know. Nobody does.

C) A fabrication of the profiteer; Professor Steven Jones

Jones made up thermite on 9.16.05

D) Kaolinite

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

(this is a link to the excellent Sunstealer post; notice how he manages not to include any biases)

Why do you JREF members log in, day in and day out? Is it not to scientifically disseminate 9/11 myths and CT's? It appears to readers that these days you're more interested in debasing. Why don't you hold all members, Twoofers and Duhbunkers alike, to the same standards so that factual information regarding various common 9/11 topics can be provided to your readers.(of which there are many more than posters)

[beachnut]

well, it seems the duhbunkers can't get their stories straight either...
....
The liar Jones can't get his story straight. You support liars with what; nothing; you offer zero evidence and post hearsay, lies, and failed opinions based on delusions. You failed to post one fact. Failure.

Proof Jones is a liar. He says this was done by thermite.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Joneslie-1.jpg
It is a clean up cut made after 911.

Here is your research effort in a photo.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/standup.jpg
You bring support in the form of a failed post, weak support for lies; next time try evidence.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/jonesfrau1.jpg
Why did Jones lie?

[16.5]

Why do you JREF members log in, day in and day out? Is it not to scientifically disseminate 9/11 myths and CT's? It appears to readers that these days you're more interested in debasing. Why don't you hold all members, Twoofers and Duhbunkers alike, to the same standards so that factual information regarding various common 9/11 topics can be provided to your readers.(of which there are many more than posters)

So we can remind anyone who does not know that Truthers are dopes that Jones claims he found "super thermite" which is thermite that does not have the right chemical characteristics of thermite, and which would lead everyone else on earth to conclude that it is not thermite.

Except Jones and his merry band of pranksters.

[dudalb]

Why do you JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists members log in, day in and day out? Is it not to scientifically disseminate 9/11 myths and CT's? It appears to readers that these days you're more interested in debasing. Why don't you hold all members, Twoofers and Duhbunkers alike, to the same standards so that factual information regarding various common 9/11 topics can be provided to your readers.(of which there are many more than posters)

Fixed that for you.

[ImANiceGuy]

Beachnut, yet another useless post completely off topic. You seem to have a low opinion of me despite not knowing any of my beliefs. What do the pictures of the cut column have to do with a JREF consensus on Jones' find. Why do the moderators allow you to insult other 'moderate' users, and de-rail members who attempt to contribute legitimate information in threads?

16.5, The only thing you remind someone sitting on the Nanothermite fence, is that even amongst the premier debunking site, James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, a clear consensus cannot be reached as to what Jones discovered. So tell me then, what is your answer to my multiple choice question? An additional choice, option E)none of the above, is acceptable.

Anyone? Bueller?

[DavidJames]

You seem to have a low opinion of me despite not knowing any of my beliefs. You've been here since April. Your beliefs, despite your disingenuous and cowardly attempt to portray yourself differently, are pathetically obvious.So tell me then, what is your answer to my multiple choice question? An additional choice, option E)none of the above, is acceptable.

Anyone? Bueller?Sure, some here will speculate on it's origins, but It really doesn't matter what people here think. The problem with CTists (like you) is you know you have no evidence so you try to spin the burden of proof.

The burden is on you (CTists) to provide the proof.

Let me know when you have any.

[beachnut]

Beachnut, yet another useless post completely off topic. You seem to have a low opinion of me despite not knowing any of my beliefs. What do the pictures of the cut column have to do with a JREF consensus on Jones' find. Why do the moderators allow you to insult other 'moderate' users, and de-rail members who attempt to contribute legitimate information in threads?

16.5, The only thing you remind someone sitting on the Nanothermite fence, is that even amongst the premier debunking site, James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, a clear consensus cannot be reached as to what Jones discovered. So tell me then, what is your answer to my multiple choice question? An additional choice, option E)none of the above, is acceptable.

Anyone? Bueller?
does this mean you know Jones lied about the clean up cuts?

The answer is Jones made up thermite and iron rust and Al in his dust does not mean he has thermite except for those who are not able to think for themselves.

You have zero useful information on 911. You posted failed opinions based on your own delusions about 911. Jones found some iron rust and Al. He says it is thermite and he implies that it proves thermite was used to bring down the WTC; a lie. No matter what you do you can't leap from Jones finding iron rust and Al in dust blocks away from the WTC to saying thermite was used to destroy the WTC. The fact is there is zero evidence of thermite product (like a big pile of iron) at the WTC site during clean up. Thousands of photos, no thermite evidence. Thousands of trained firemen at ground zero found no piles of thermite product. Thousands of pieces of steel examined and found to be thermite free.

Present your massive pile of evidence you lost or your dog ate because your failed opinion post is void of substance save your opinion. I am waiting for you to post evidence. You posted failed opinions.

Present your support for Jones saying the thermite was in the ceiling tiles. Do you have anything more than failed opinions? Do you realize how crazy Jones' ideas on 911 are? Do you understand he made up the thermite scenario 4 years after 911 with hearsay, and false information and now has moved to sprayed on super-nano-thermite? You failed to present your evidence; why?


BTW: jones made up thermite is the answer! Comprehension skills in your cult which spews lies need to be worked on.

I answered your question years ago and Jones proves he made it up in his first paper. Did you see his first paper/letter where he makes up from scratch the delusional thermite story? He is a fraud who keeps making up bigger lies to cover his failure to be a good anti-war activist or some other failure. He was fired for his lunacy.

Jones discovered early in his fraud there are those who can’t comprehend his lies loosely veiled in a soft personable fashion of super-nano-intellectualism, who suspects a PhD in physics of poppycock (BS junk ideas) when he says repeats the commons sense sounding “broke the laws of momentum” or had to be a high temperature thermite reaction. Geewhiz not one of his believers is able to define a mol or do basic chemistry or physics. Jones discovered he could say stuff that sounded official about 911 and fool the masses of wannabe followers of nut case conspiracy theories and never be suspected of being a fraud, dolt and terrorist apologist on 911 issues.

[ImANiceGuy]

Beachnut, once again you missed my point. You lack basic reading comprehension; it's no wonder you are unable to decipher the context and content of my posts. Additionally, you draw conclusions from non existing premises. I never suggested thermite was used to bring down the WTC.

I simply provided a multiple choice question that reflects the 4 possible explanations given in this thread as to the nature of Jones' discovery. If Beachnut stands by his answer, then the material tested by Jones was iron rust and aluminum; Is this not worthy of debunking? If you called it an "inter-member fact-check clarification" instead, would it then be worth your time to set Beachnut straight?

Herein lies the problem, no consensus has ever been reached, so no one can be set straight.

Is , "D) Kaolinite", in the lead?

And just to be very clear, I have never acted with a hidden agenda nor have I been disengenuous. Although I do not feel as though I owe his accusations any consideration, I would like to publicly apologize to DavidJames if I offended him in any way. I would never intend to be anything but genuine, respectful, and clear. I have not retreated from anyone's questions.

A good defense is a strong offense when the hive is disturbed, as demonstrated. I wanted only to point out that when a topic of conspiracy is being discussed, it is important for everyone involved, whether "friend" or "enemy" to be working with facts, not conjecture.

So does anyone have an answer to the original multiple choice?

[R.Mackey]

I simply provided a multiple choice question that reflects the 4 possible explanations given in this thread as to the nature of Jones' discovery. [...]

Herein lies the problem, no consensus has ever been reached, so no one can be set straight.

Is , "D) Kaolinite", in the lead?


Well, actually, beachnut's answer was correct. What you're attempting to do is set up a False Choice Fallacy.

You see, at various times, Dr. Jones has claimed to have found at least four different types of thermite, either from reactions after the fact or from different bits and types of debris. His findings are in no way self-consistent. Therefore, there is no single explanation that accounts for them all.

Even his "nanothermite" changes radically. In the paper in The Environmentalist, he postulates it was there on the basis of 1,3-DPP outgassing, which in some weird universe where thermite burns at low temperature is indicative of the binder material. But in his latest Bentham paper, he dismisses any such organics as "contaminants."

You may also recall him waffling between "thermite," "thermite with added sulfur," and "thermate." Just different brands of double-talk depending on the latest scam he's trying to pull. No consistency. I haven't heard anyone bring up "thermate" in about a year, even though once it was all the rage in the conspiracy-addled set.

Heck, even if we restrict ourselves to one paper, his findings aren't even self-consistent. You'll note in his latest, for instance, that the energy content measurements vary by about a factor of eight from sample to sample, and that the ones on the high end are about double that of 100% pure, stoichiometrically ideal thermite.

Bottom line is, anything that looks the least bit odd to him, he will brand as thermite or some related substance. You cannot find a single explanation for all of his various claims like you demand -- not even with thermite. Dr. Jones has provided no single explanation either, not even a wrong one.

The only correct, single answer that covers everything is choice E), or "Dr. Jones doesn't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about."

[beachnut]

Beachnut, once again you missed my point. You lack basic reading comprehension; ... I answered the question and have a reading comprehension problem. At least I am not supporting the nut case ideas of Jones.
I agree! I read something quickly and see right through the veil of BS; that is a reading comprehension problem, I skip right to the heart of Jones' problem; he has an insane idea he made up 4 years after 911. I figured this out after scanning his first delusional thermite paper years ago in seconds. I was trained by having a brother who can spew more BS in seconds than Jones can dig up from the pit of ignorance in years.

You on the other hand are an expert at seeing I lack basic (basic is such a basic thing) reading comprehension but no clue why I can see Jones is a liar and you can't. What do you lack; can the wizard help you?

I am proud to be a LBRC challenged kid; looks like the LBRC is a trait that enables me to see liars on 911 issues quickly and without all the cool prose needed to fool gullible people like you into believing me. I think it is cool if you remain in ignorance on 911 issues for as long as you want. As an expert at diagnosing LBRC you must be proud.

Was your post a veiled attack? If I was not LBRC I would be able to know.

The point is it does not matter what Jones says he has; there is no evidence of thermite being used on the WTC complex. Period.

You have no ample evidence on this topic! You have wasted your time becoming an expert at LBRC identification which you do infinitely better than your 911 research but it is a failed effort also. Is this called projecting or something?

[ImANiceGuy]

Macky, option E) absolves me of a false dichotomy. Also, you are too proud to stick up for Beachnut, he's below you. Speak to those of us who appreciate the plain facts explained simply, with limited editorial.

So what the heck could he have found that emits twice the energy content of stoichiometrically ideal thermite in the dust of the largest building collapse in human history? Nanothermite?(Joke!)

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof, because I do not bear the burden, and neither do you. I do not represent any _____truth groups(911,AE,P,etc), nor do you and your respective groups.(GOP probably. Joke!)

I'm just curious as to what his samples could be, because in all my 9/11 research, I have yet to find a substantiated rebuttal.

Always keeping in mind of course, that in order for Dr.Jones to have found any chips in the WTC dust, he had to first be searching through WTC dust....

[Arus808]

Red paint.. simple . Red paint was used to paint the steel frames of the towers before the aluminum, concrete and glass were used to cover them.

Care to move on? Since Jones has never followed any modicum of scientific testing on his samples, he conveniently ignores the simple fact that his RED chips came from is simply RED freaking paint.

[R.Mackey]

Macky, option E) absolves me of a false dichotomy. Also, you are too proud to stick up for Beachnut, he's below you. Speak to those of us who appreciate the plain facts explained simply, with limited editorial.

So what the heck could he have found that emits twice the energy content of stoichiometrically ideal thermite in the dust of the largest building collapse in human history? Nanothermite?(Joke!)

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof, because I do not bear the burden, and neither do you. I do not represent any _____truth groups(911,AE,P,etc), nor do you and your respective groups.(GOP probably. Joke!)

I'm just curious as to what his samples could be, because in all my 9/11 research, I have yet to find a substantiated rebuttal.

But you didn't present E) as an option.


You haven't looked very hard. There are something like 100 pages of discussion on this topic.

It's paint. Dr. Greening hypothesizes -- and I agree with him -- that the "bi-layered" type is still adherent to a rusted and/or spalled bit of steel; that's what the grey layer is. The flakes that Dr. Henry-Coannier received are only single-sided, just red, and they are wholly consistent with paint.

This hypothesis matches every single property that Dr. Jones measured: EDX spectrum, appearance under electron microscopy, energy content and its variability, ignition temperature, magnetism, and presence in dust found in New York City, whether or not specficially from the World Trade Center. Every single one of those properties is also inconsistent with any grade of thermite.

QED.

[TruthersLie]

Is Jones' thermite..............................?

A) A natural product from the collapse and ensuing fires

B) Unknown

C) A fabrication of the profiteer; Professor Steven Jones

D) Kaolinite

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

(this is a link to the excellent Sunstealer post; notice how he manages not to include any biases)

Why do you JREF members log in, day in and day out? Is it not to scientifically disseminate 9/11 myths and CT's? It appears to readers that these days you're more interested in debasing. Why don't you hold all members, Twoofers and Duhbunkers alike, to the same standards so that factual information regarding various common 9/11 topics can be provided to your readers.(of which there are many more than posters)

To back up the answer Ryan Mackey gave you.

S Jones and pals have been trying to pass off thermite, thermate and now super duper nanothermite.

Since each of these claims have been made based on different and contradictory evidence, there is NOT ONE SINGLE answer to the question of what "it" is.

so we have aluminum and iron oxide (rust) which was the original THERMITE claim.
Then we have the high sulfur from the gypsum and drywall plus the iron oxide and aluminu hence the claim of THERMATE
and now we have the super duper (it will clean your room, do the dishes, and be EXACTLY what you want) nanothermite which is Paint as sunstealer so deftly showed.

It is rather amusing that you go after beachnut for posting a rather succient overview which is pretty much the same for all 3 claims... it is BS, w/no proof and is peddled to scientifically challenged individuals who can't see through the obvious and blatant crap science.

I'm sorry that you seem to have missed the main point of beachnuts reply... I got it, and so did most of the other folks. It was a rather straight and hard reply to a CT/911 truther.

ETA: so therefore all 4 choices are correct depending on which claim you are discussing. Since it was a general "was thermite found" question, then all of those answers are valid. And including answer E from Ryan Mackey.

[TruthersLie]

Beachnut, yet another useless post completely off topic. You seem to have a low opinion of me despite not knowing any of my beliefs. What do the pictures of the cut column have to do with a JREF consensus on Jones' find. Why do the moderators allow you to insult other 'moderate' users, and de-rail members who attempt to contribute legitimate information in threads?

16.5, The only thing you remind someone sitting on the Nanothermite fence, is that even amongst the premier debunking site, James Randi Educational Foundation Forum, a clear consensus cannot be reached as to what Jones discovered. So tell me then, what is your answer to my multiple choice question? An additional choice, option E)none of the above, is acceptable.

Anyone? Bueller?

Or we can just see where beachnut went after you... you are a truther. very simple. You post in insult to start with duhbunkers. Right there you will not recieve a "warm" welcome, and from your posting history you have asked already debunked questions, and refused the answers given. You have tried to prop up people like waterboy (known liar) kevin ryan and the "i'm just asking questions" is a bs line that no one buys...

'
ETA. then you shift to the "nanothermite" claim which is NOT what you were discussing previously. You were all over the board and the people you quoted were discussing SEVERAL DIFFERENT claims made by jones. Why do you conflate them? Do you not understand that each of those quotes is about a DIFFERENT thermite related Jones claim?

As for the direct nanothermite claims, sunstealer has provided some of the best and most indepth analysis (actual real analysis, unlike what S Jones and pals did)

[Dave Rogers]

So what the heck could he have found that emits twice the energy content of stoichiometrically ideal thermite in the dust of the largest building collapse in human history?

Just about anything combustible in air will have something like ten times the energy content of thermite. Thermite's energy content is low because it contains its own oxygen source chemically bound (very strongly) to iron atoms, rather than using elemental oxygen from ambient air. Paper, wood, aviation fuel and, yes, paint chips, would all be expected to yield very much more energy of combustion than the same mass of thermite. As mysteries go, this is one of the least mysterious imaginable.

Dave

[TjW]

We already know plumbing is a carefully planned interconnected web that reaches into all our homes, even into our very kitchens and bathrooms. It starts at the very top and if you follow it long enough, it always leads right to the sewer.

Respectfully,
Myriad

And it's been implicated in the government distribution of DHMO -- dihydrogen monoxide. Virtually every water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance!

[Longfellow]

And it's been implicated in the government distribution of DHMO -- dihydrogen monoxide. Virtually every water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance!

Emphasis mine.

That should read: "Every single water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance"

Insidious stuff that dihydrogen monoxide.

[McHrozni]

That should read: "Every single water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance"

Insidious stuff that dihydrogen monoxide.


http://www.dhmo.org/images/dhmobanner.gif

Couldn't stop myself :)

McHrozni

[ImANiceGuy]

But you didn't present E) as an option...You haven't looked very hard...

An additional choice, option E)none of the above, is acceptable.

Hilarious irony. However, I neglected to bold the "E", so you get a pass...thats nice of me right?

Can no one play the Devil's Advocate at JREF? Or are you all beyond reproach? A truly wise person should be capable of differentiating between what you call a "Truther" and a genuine, honest researcher. I remember someone(someone famous like Paris Hilton or Nelson Mandela) saying they thought Gladwell was the greatest 21st C intellectual because he was capable of first listening, then accepting new information

I have never claimed, like many others, to just be asking questions.....and I have never ran from a thread, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about my specific opinions, if it will allow us to have a simple conversation without calling names....

[TexasJack]

[QUOTE]I have never claimed, like many others, to just be asking questions.....and I have never ran from a thread, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about my specific opinions,
We're not interested in your opinions, we're interested in evidence
if it will allow us to have a simple conversation without calling names.
Oh you mean like you do, or did you forget already
Carl, are you dense?

[Newtons Bit]

Can no one play the Devil's Advocate at JREF? Or are you all beyond reproach? A truly wise person should be capable of differentiating between what you call a "Truther" and a genuine, honest researcher. I remember someone(someone famous like Paris Hilton or Nelson Mandela) saying they thought Gladwell was the greatest 21st C intellectual because he was capable of first listening, then accepting new information

If you still think 9/11 MIGHT be an inside job after 8 years then you need to get your head examined.

[TruthersLie]

The problem is that this applies to S Jones and co's attitudes and beliefs of nanothermite, thermite and thermate

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/phpimages/photoshop/9/2/3/1923.jpg?v=1

[tsig]

Hilarious irony. However, I neglected to bold the "E", so you get a pass...thats nice of me right?

Can no one play the Devil's Advocate at JREF? Or are you all beyond reproach? A truly wise person should be capable of differentiating between what you call a "Truther" and a genuine, honest researcher. I remember someone(someone famous like Paris Hilton or Nelson Mandela) saying they thought Gladwell was the greatest 21st C intellectual because he was capable of first listening, then accepting new information

I have never claimed, like many others, to just be asking questions.....and I have never ran from a thread, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about my specific opinions, if it will allow us to have a simple conversation without calling names....

Who did it?

How did they do it?

Why did they do it?

[HeyLeroy]

Emphasis mine.

That should read: "Every single water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance"

Insidious stuff that dihydrogen monoxide.

It's found in malignant tumours too, right?

[Longfellow]

http://www.dhmo.org/images/dhmobanner.gif

Couldn't stop myself :)

McHrozni

It's found in malignant tumours too, right?

Dihydrogen Monoxide is some serious shiznit. There's even a website about it: DHMO.org (http://www.dhmo.org/)

[ImANiceGuy]

We're not interested in your opinions, we're interested in evidence

Well Jack, if I ever decide to make a claim based on one of my opinions, I'll be sure to present my evidence and if I called Carl dense, he most probably was. Meanwhile, my own opinion is being given to me based on assumptions; I have never received the benefit of doubt...

I do not seek to prove that Dr. Steven Jones found *.*Therm*.* in the WTC dust, either directly or indirectly. All I would like to know is the truth of the matter. So I guess that makes me a Truther.

I'm reading all about the paint right now. I look forward to posting my reply.


Who did it?

How did they do it?

Why did they do it?

The Conspirators.

Terror.

Control.

[Sam.I.Am]

Dihydrogen Monoxide is some serious shiznit. There's even a website about it: DHMO.org (http://www.dhmo.org/)

There was a machine (well two of them actually) on my boat that used pure DMHO that was an extreme fire and explosion hazard because it separated the molecular components of DMHO. It's use was so vital that we had to risk using it.

[TexasJack]

Well Jack, if I ever decide to make a claim based on one of my opinions, I'll be sure to present my evidence and if I called Carl dense, he most probably was

Oh I get it iceguy, it's ok for you to call people names, but not vice versa. Got it.

[beachnut]

Who did it?

How did they do it?

Why did they do it?
Who - 19 terrorists without thermite

How - killed 8 pilots and others so they could crashed planes into buildings with no thermite in them

Why - stupidity ... like 911 conspiracy theorists they were duped by idiotic ideas; a faith based cult

No thermite was used to destroy the WTC towers, WTC 7, the Pentagon, or Flight 93. A few conspiracy minded people are fooled by the moronic ideas of Jones about thermite. With proper reading comprehensions skill you can see Jones is a liar in seconds.

[R.Mackey]

Hilarious irony. However, I neglected to bold the "E", so you get a pass...thats nice of me right?

Except for the fact that option "E" did not appear in your original phrasing of the question... and your later amendment didn't resolve you of the problem. That problem is this: Dr. Jones has misidentified many substances as thermite of one sort or another, and you demanded a consensus on only one explanation.

In any case, since you haven't argued -- or even commented on -- the facts as I explained them to you, I'll assume the matter is settled. There was no thermite.

Can no one play the Devil's Advocate at JREF? Or are you all beyond reproach? A truly wise person should be capable of differentiating between what you call a "Truther" and a genuine, honest researcher. I remember someone(someone famous like Paris Hilton or Nelson Mandela) saying they thought Gladwell was the greatest 21st C intellectual because he was capable of first listening, then accepting new information

You've brought no information. Nor is there a "Devil's Advocate" position to be found here. There was only a question of evidence and fact, not of opinion. I suppose you could still support Dr. Jones and his claims, but that's not "devil's advocate." The proper name for it is "wrong."

[Dave Rogers]

I do not seek to prove that Dr. Steven Jones found *.*Therm*.* in the WTC dust, either directly or indirectly. All I would like to know is the truth of the matter. So I guess that makes me a Truther.

The truth of the matter, as far as I can tell, is (F) Not exactly none of the above, and not exactly all. The following is my opinion and deduction and should not be taken as proven fact.

Steven Jones appears to have started from the unquestioned belief that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by destructive devices placed within it by conspirators within the US Government. This belief, I suspect, was idealogical rather than evidence-based. However, he quickly ran into the difficulty that the only known devices for causing such a collapse were demolition explosives, and he was sufficiently non-delusional to realise that the sharp and extremely loud sounds made by such explosives immediately prior to collapse were absent from audio recordings of the collapses, and that this was concincing evidence that such explosives had not been used. Therefore, in order to save his hypothesis, he had to postulate a device or substance capable of severing the steel support structure of the towers without creating loud noises.

His answer to this conundrum was to hypothesise the use of a thermite reaction, which is known to generate sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel. This required him to attribute nonexistent and often self-contradictory properties to thermite, but he has so far managed to delude himself sufficiently to ignore this problem. His mission, therefore, has been to find evidence that there was thermite present in the Twin Towers. His belief is that this will prove that their collapse was due to thermite-based devices. Again, there is a problem with this backward reasoning, because logic is not reversible; "all A are B" does not imply "all B are A", and as a result Jones's logic is generally based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent, a classic symptom of trying to formulate a proof based on backward reasoning.

Jones's approach, therefore, has been to sift through the evidence, modifying it occasionally to suit his purposes, for items that appear superficially consistent with the presence of thermite in the Twin Towers. These specific items are presented as irrefutable proof, while any and all items of evidence that contradict the hypothesis are simply ignored; these include the internal contradictions of the hypothesis itself.

The origin of thermite particles, therefore, is not physical but psychological; they originate from the imagination of Steven Jones, and the evidence for their existence is carefully selected, and where necessary edited, by him.

Dave

[bill smith]

The truth of the matter, as far as I can tell, is (F) Not exactly none of the above, and not exactly all. The following is my opinion and deduction and should not be taken as proven fact.

Steven Jones appears to have started from the unquestioned belief that the collapse of the Twin Towers was caused by destructive devices placed within it by conspirators within the US Government. This belief, I suspect, was idealogical rather than evidence-based. However, he quickly ran into the difficulty that the only known devices for causing such a collapse were demolition explosives, and he was sufficiently non-delusional to realise that the sharp and extremely loud sounds made by such explosives immediately prior to collapse were absent from audio recordings of the collapses, and that this was concincing evidence that such explosives had not been used. Therefore, in order to save his hypothesis, he had to postulate a device or substance capable of severing the steel support structure of the towers without creating loud noises.

His answer to this conundrum was to hypothesise the use of a thermite reaction, which is known to generate sufficiently high temperatures to melt steel. This required him to attribute nonexistent and often self-contradictory properties to thermite, but he has so far managed to delude himself sufficiently to ignore this problem. His mission, therefore, has been to find evidence that there was thermite present in the Twin Towers. His belief is that this will prove that their collapse was due to thermite-based devices. Again, there is a problem with this backward reasoning, because logic is not reversible; "all A are B" does not imply "all B are A", and as a result Jones's logic is generally based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent, a classic symptom of trying to formulate a proof based on backward reasoning.

Jones's approach, therefore, has been to sift through the evidence, modifying it occasionally to suit his purposes, for items that appear superficially consistent with the presence of thermite in the Twin Towers. These specific items are presented as irrefutable proof, while any and all items of evidence that contradict the hypothesis are simply ignored; these include the internal contradictions of the hypothesis itself.

The origin of thermite particles, therefore, is not physical but psychological; they originate from the imagination of Steven Jones, and the evidence for their existence is carefully selected, and where necessary edited, by him.

Dave

'...modifying it occasionally to suit his purposes '

Can you enlarge on what you think his 'purposes' might have been Dave ? And a little clarification on what exactly you think he may have'modified' might be interesting.

[Dave Rogers]

Can you enlarge on what you think his 'purposes' might have been Dave ?

To manufacture proof to bolster his belief system. He believes he knows The Truth, but he can't prove it; therefore, if he just fudges the data a little, it's in the service of good so it's a pardonable sin. He expects, of course, that even if he's had to alter the evidence a little, his conclusions will eventually be proven correct, so his subterfuge will be overlooked because it led to the discovery of The Truth. A bit like corrupt policemen fabricating evidence to help convict someone they just know is guilty, but they can't prove guilty before a court; the ends will eventually justify the means.

And a little clarification on what exactly you think he may have'modified' might be interesting.

Colour values on photographs, for one, I think he may have modified. He has certainly used some fairly tortuous logic to claim that various observations suggest other than what they actually suggest, and has certainly tried implicitly to 'modify' the known melting point of iron by suggesting that a temperature of 1200ºC indicates molten iron.

As I said, this is all my opinion rather than verified fact.

Dave

[bill smith]

To manufacture proof to bolster his belief system. He believes he knows The Truth, but he can't prove it; therefore, if he just fudges the data a little, it's in the service of good so it's a pardonable sin. He expects, of course, that even if he's had to alter the evidence a little, his conclusions will eventually be proven correct, so his subterfuge will be overlooked because it led to the discovery of The Truth. A bit like corrupt policemen fabricating evidence to help convict someone they just know is guilty, but they can't prove guilty before a court; the ends will eventually justify the means.



Colour values on photographs, for one, I think he may have modified. He has certainly used some fairly tortuous logic to claim that various observations suggest other than what they actually suggest, and has certainly tried implicitly to 'modify' the known melting point of iron by suggesting that a temperature of 1200ºC indicates molten iron.

As I said, this is all my opinion rather than verified fact.

Dave
Ah......

[Dave Rogers]

Ah......

Bill, you see that "Quote" button at the bottom right corner? If you've got nothing to say, you don't have to press it.

Dave

[aggle-rithm]

And it's been implicated in the government distribution of DHMO -- dihydrogen monoxide. Virtually every water system in the U.S. shows traces of this dangerous substance!

That's why I gave up the stuff. From now on, only oil-based beverages!

[aggle-rithm]

Jones's approach, therefore, has been to sift through the evidence, modifying it occasionally to suit his purposes, for items that appear superficially consistent with the presence of thermite in the Twin Towers. These specific items are presented as irrefutable proof, while any and all items of evidence that contradict the hypothesis are simply ignored; these include the internal contradictions of the hypothesis itself.

The origin of thermite particles, therefore, is not physical but psychological; they originate from the imagination of Steven Jones, and the evidence for their existence is carefully selected, and where necessary edited, by him.

Dave

I don't know what it is about seasoned professors like Jones who reach a point in their careers where they seem to think they are "above" rational thinking and can just skip to the conclusions. The most ridiculous of his claims are that pools of molten iron found in the wreckage (whose existence is by no means certain) is somehow consistent with the use of thermite a month earlier. For a physics professor, a simple back-of-the envelope equation should be enough to show that this is ludicrous...the amount of thermite required to keep iron above the melting point for a month would probably burn down to the Earth's core.

[bill smith]

I don't know what it is about seasoned professors like Jones who reach a point in their careers where they seem to think they are "above" rational thinking and can just skip to the conclusions. The most ridiculous of his claims are that pools of molten iron found in the wreckage (whose existence is by no means certain) is somehow consistent with the use of thermite a month earlier. For a physics professor, a simple back-of-the envelope equation should be enough to show that this is ludicrous...the amount of thermite required to keep iron above the melting point for a month would probably burn down to the Earth's core.

A mere ten tons of molten steel,with or without added thermite did not keep that pile hot for up to three months.

[aggle-rithm]

A mere ten tons of molten steel,with or without added thermite did not keep that pile hot for up to three months.

Exactly. Fire kept it hot.

Plus, there is zero evidence for molten steel. If you've got some, please provide it.

[Dave Rogers]

A mere ten tons of molten steel,with or without added thermite did not keep that pile hot for up to three months.

For once, bill smith has said something I cannot fault in any way whatsoever. The pile was very obviously kept hot neither by pre-existing molten steel nor by thermite.

Dave

[bill smith]

Exactly. Fire kept it hot.

Plus, there is zero evidence for molten steel. If you've got some, please provide it.

It's posts like this that put me in mind of Steve's '1000 paid Shills'.

I know, you know and the viewing public know that no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile. And all fires require outside oxygen. Everybody knows that covering a burning pan of oil with a heavy cloth douses the flames by depriving the fire of oxygen so there is no chance at all of fires burning deep in the compacted mass of the pile.

I am not too interested in hearing about the coal seam in Nebraska or whereever it is that can burn forever with very little oxygen. Plainly there was no coal seam deep in the pile. Unless you know differently of course ? At this stage no debunker claim would surprise me.

[Justin39640]

It's posts like this that put me in mind of Steve's '1000 paid Shills'.

I know, you know and the viewing public know that no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile. And all fires require outside oxygen. Everybody knows that covering a burning pan of oil with a heavy cloth douses the flames by depriving of oxygen it so there iss no chance at all of fires burning deep in the compacted mass of the pile.

I am not too interested in hearig about the coal seam in Nebraska or whereever it is that can burn forever with very little oxygen. Plainly there was no coal seam deep in the pile. Unless you know differently of course ? At this stage no debunker claim would surprise me.

you obviously underestimate the power of large fires

and your post here reminds me of "how does air get in subway tunnels"

[beachnut]

... no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile. And all fires require outside oxygen. Everybody knoes that covering a burning pan of oil with a heavy cloth douses the flames by depriving of oxygen it so there iss no chance at all of fires burning deep in the compacted mass of the pile.
...
The fires deep in the basement of the WTC had oxygen. End of Story. Why do you post nonsense. Fire can burn with little oxygen and they get very hot. I run my fire place by shutting down as much air supply as possible to deprive the fire so it burn hotter and longer. The truth is I can take a log that burns up in less than 30 minutes and in my fireplace by shutting off most the air supply burn it for 8 to 10, to 12 hours. This is why the fires burned for months in the WTC a giant supple of stuff to burn was deprived of gobs of air, and burned for months. Thermite burns in seconds. There goes Jones lies down the pit of ignorance where you dredge up all your 911 ideas

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
... no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile.

So coal mine fires are one more topic that Bill is ignorant of.

Abandoned coal mines sometimes catch fire and when they do, they burn for decades and are impossible to put out and can destroy the town that sits on top. Centralia Pennsylvania has been burning since 1961.

http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/fire-history.htm

[beachnut]

'...modifying it occasionally to suit his purposes '

Can you enlarge on what you think his 'purposes' might have been Dave ? And a little clarification on what exactly you think he may have'modified' might be interesting.
Jones hated the war bush started so like Nixon for Jones the ends justify the means; Jones is a liar. Jones is nuts and he made up thermite with a failed letter 4 years after 911. If you had research skills (like reading) you would know about this and if you could string evidence together you could see Jones is making up a lie. Jones got fired for producing unsupported poppycock like this.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.
Poppycock. Please get an engineer, a scientist, a chemist to read this one paragraph and explain why Jones is a liar. This one paragraph on thermite is his entire proof for thermite including the evidence.

The purpose of his paper is to declare without evidence the WTC collapsed due to controlled demolition; the big clue here is the primary source of energy, or force, for destroying building in CD is gravity. The sad irony Jones is a physicist. A failure as he pens this letter.
WTC collapses due to controlled demolition
Steven E. Jones
Professor of Physics/BYU

I believe WTC collapses to be due to controlled demolition are:

1. My own analysis of Are what? Are? I never noticed he was just ranting. He is upset about something and he makes up thermite after smashing cinder-blocks and not getting enough dust which was in the WTC mostly insulation, wallboard, ceiling tiles; not all cement. Delusional Jones.

Show me the tons of molten metal? Better yet if it is just metal not steel, what good would the thermite be if it did not melt the steel? Gee whiz the jet fuel alone is 10 time more heat energy than thermite, and paper has more heat energy than thermite. Jones has a crazy theory which fools people who lack knowledge; people like you? If Jones needs a heat source the jet fuel first at 630 TONS of TNT heat energy for the towers and then the Fire in the towers even more energy than the Jet fuel. Jones is not rational, and people that support him share some sort of willful ignorance quest.

There was no thermite; Jones made it up and now it is a test of rational thinking. A test of research. A test of who is dumb enough to fall for a lie without looking at the facts first. I can't find a single piece of evidence to support Jones overall controlled demolition delusion. No one can. You will provide nothing but uniformed statements mostly false. Repeating failed ideas, posting moronic videos. Did you fail?

[Dave Rogers]

It's posts like this that put me in mind of Steve's '1000 paid Shills'.

You mean the claim that he couldn't back up, pretended he'd backed up when somebody posted an article that didn't support it, and is now pretending he's proven by reference to a claim of one paid agent provocateur who isn't even a shill?

We know there wasn't any coal in the rubble pile. Paper, wood, plastics, interior fabrics all burn. Limiting the oxygen supply will make them burn slowly, something thermite can't possibly do. Whatever it was that kept the pile hot, as you admitted yourself we know it wasn't thermite.

Dave

[bill smith]

You mean the claim that he couldn't back up, pretended he'd backed up when somebody posted an article that didn't support it, and is now pretending he's proven by reference to a claim of one paid agent provocateur who isn't even a shill?

We know there wasn't any coal in the rubble pile. Paper, wood, plastics, interior fabrics all burn. Limiting the oxygen supply will make them burn slowly, something thermite can't possibly do. Whatever it was that kept the pile hot, as you admitted yourself we know it wasn't thermite.

Dave

With your customary exaggeration and disinformation Dave you say I said there was no thermite.

[beachnut]

With your customary exaggeration and disinformation Dave you say I said there was no thermite.
You said it again. Jones made it up so it was not in the WTC it is in Jones' delusional mind on 911 issues.

... there was no thermite. This is the only thing you would get right if you could form a rational sentence on 911.

[bill smith]

You said it again. Jones made it up so it was not in the WTC it is in Jones' delusional mind on 911 issues.

This is the only thing you would get right if you could form a rational sentence on 911.

I think you've been reading too much AW Smith Beachnut.

[beachnut]

I think you've been reading too much AW Smith Beachnut.
Jones made up thermite and you lack the knowledge to understand that. It boils down to knowledge and you prefer posting lies from idiots who make up moronic delusions about 911. You remain in ignorance; why?

Where is Jones evidence thermite was used in the WTC?

[aggle-rithm]

I know, you know and the viewing public know that no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile. And all fires require outside oxygen. Everybody knows that covering a burning pan of oil with a heavy cloth douses the flames by depriving the fire of oxygen so there iss no chance at all of fires burning deep in the compacted mass of the pile.


Oh, this should be good.

Please tell me what YOU think happened.

[Dave Rogers]

With your customary exaggeration and disinformation Dave you say I said there was no thermite.

I apologise for attributing an intelligent opinion to you.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Nothing like seeing the hermetically sealed rubble pile claim again.

[stateofgrace]

So coal mine fires are one more topic that Bill is ignorant of.

Abandoned coal mines sometimes catch fire and when they do, they burn for decades and are impossible to put out and can destroy the town that sits on top. Centralia Pennsylvania has been burning since 1961.

http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/fire-history.htm

The oldest underground fire as burnt for centuries.
The oldest known continuously burning fire is an underground coal fire in New South Wales, Australia. This fire apparently started over 2,000 years ago when lightning struck a large coal seam at a point where it reached the surface of the earth. Today the fire is more than 500 feet (152 meters) underground, and is still slowly eating away at the coal............................ Underground coal fires are almost impossible to put out. They burn very slowly, using up the scant oxygen in the depths, but not going out because they stay very hot.
I assume you won't bother to read the link I post Bill, it's ok, I fully understand your desire to maintain your fantasies

Linky (http://www.mail-archive.com/fact@tlk-lists.com/msg00037.html)

[ImANiceGuy]

Mackey, if you had bothered to read through all 2 pages of previous posts in order to gain better context as you commented, you would not have prematurely levied a fallacy. I can concede that I did not bold the "E)". Moving on...

...to the main event, this little 'science' paper;oh so hotly received by the 9/11 Movement, fiercely disseminated and criticised by Skeptics.

There are a few well known Truther-bloggers, who have managed to abandon some of the common-sense debunked CT's(No Planes, Fly-over,etc). This has created a fraction in what you refer to as the 911 Truth movement, where one side is accusing the other of being disinformation agents. You've got architects and engineers all over the place!

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

However, these 'moderate' truthers still cling hard to the "nano-thermite proven by science-paper" bit and even claim to have an answer to your paint theory(fact by you, theory by them), which I have yet, (but am eager to) to see succinctly debunked.

In football we used to say; last guy to the chalkboard wins the game. I mean, advantage Jones when it comes to the Internet wars.....(and please don't misrepresent me on this, I'm not saying the tm is winning)

One thing I've wondered, and I really don't want the usual and typical responses, is: How do we know that the entire thing isn't simply made up? Debating the science rests on the premise that something was legitimately found in Jones' WTC dust samples.....right? Based on Mackey's info, I would be led to believe this(real find) is correct.

As for paint, here's what Jones rebukes, which is reverbarated by these bloggers in addition to the explosiveness issue...

"Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent."

Page 21, Harrit et al. (Revised Feb 10, 2009)

Has this ever been discussed? And if so, is there a decent thread which I could be linked to s'il te plait?

[beachnut]

Who is gullible enough to think Jones made up thermite scam destroyed the WTC. They have to be lacking knowledge on a broad spectrum of subjects. No person has come forward to support with evidence Jones' conclusion. Reason; Jones made up his thermite scenario and if fools a few people who can't think for themselves.

Jones had to pay to publish a work which is done to support his preordained delusions of controlled demolition he dreamed up 4 years after 911. It is ironic to see his paper discussed as if it was good for something besides weeding out the gullible.

I suppose mixing in some science before you make your moronic conclusion based on your lies and fantasy, fools those people who have not researched 911.

google The red material did swell but did not dissolve site:randi.org
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293&page=31

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

[Scott Sommers]

NiceGuy, I don`t know how old you are or what you do for a living. There are people here who publish these kinds of papers for a living. I am one of them. In our minds, some of what are referred to as peer-reviewed journals are actually no good at all. Publishing in them has no meaning at all. It has the same meaning as putting your paper up on the Internet. For example, the Journal of 9/11 Studies has no status at all. Publishing in it has the same meaning as putting a paper up on your blog - perhaps even less.

Even results published in respectable venues are sometimes ignored completely. The fact is that some scientists are not very good at doing research. Their results can be duplicated by others and skilled scientists can tell this by looking at the research. Work like this may still find its way into a quality venue and work published outside these venues may still be good.

The fact is that Steven Jones has found nothing at all. He would not be publishing his results this way if he had good data that could stand up. He would have sent it to a highly respected journal like the ones listed by Thompson International.
http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
He could even present his findings at a professional conference attended by other similar scientists who could ask him questions directly.

Neither Steven Jones nor any of his `scholars` have done anything like this - in years. The only conclusion is that they can`t. Instead, they use the popular press, the Internet, they talk with lay groups. Face it, instead of having Dr. XXXX who has discussed the thermite bombs with Jones at a conference and can explain their physics to us, we are forced to deal with you. Why can`t we talk with Dow Chemical chemists who make thermite for the US military? Sure, they`re all in on it, I know. But the reality is they`ve probably never heard of Jones` work because he only talks about it with you guys and publishes it in a journal that`s not very important.

And finally, no one here is surprised at Jones doing it this way - I mean announcing scientific results through non-academic means. He has already been involved in one of the biggest scientific frauds in modern history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

[ImANiceGuy]

I suppose mixing in some science before you make your moronic conclusion based on your lies and fantasy fools those people who have not researched 911.

I laughed out loud when I read this beatchnut......something about leopards and spots.

Thanks for the links though......

EDIT:

I don't know why Twinsdead 2 posts down has it out for me? I guarantee he didn't read all 2 pages of posts...stereotype, predjudice, generalization, pigeonhole......we need to start seeing people for what they say, and what they do, in our own experiences.........why be so quick to judge? Because its happened so many times before? Is this a good enough excuse for humanity? I've met a lot of poor and dishonest Somalian people, should I treat the next one I meet with incivility? Obviously not....I will treat him according to his actions and his words in my experience.

I'm learning more, reading much, running about 24 windows, needing badly to organize some favorites. I'll certainly respond to Sctottaiwan's post in good time.

Tsig, I'll get to you too, quid pro quo.

Everyone else please read post #79

[BigAl]

However, these 'moderate' truthers still cling hard to the "nano-thermite proven by science-paper" bit and even claim to have an answer to your paint theory(fact by you, theory by them), which I have yet, (but am eager to) to see succinctly debunked.


Assume you have an unlimited supply of therm-anything and have the ability to place it anywhere you want inside a WTC tower and can ignite it any way you want.

I give you that.

Whatever happens, it won't look like what thousands of people saw on 9/11 and what we all watch on YouTube.

There is no evidence of any sort of man-made demolition at WTC.

[twinstead]

I laughed out loud when I read this beatchnut......something about leopards and spots.

Thanks for the links though......

Interesting out of the two posts following yours, you chose that one to respond to...

[tsig]

Well Jack, if I ever decide to make a claim based on one of my opinions, I'll be sure to present my evidence and if I called Carl dense, he most probably was. Meanwhile, my own opinion is being given to me based on assumptions; I have never received the benefit of doubt...

I do not seek to prove that Dr. Steven Jones found *.*Therm*.* in the WTC dust, either directly or indirectly. All I would like to know is the truth of the matter. So I guess that makes me a Truther.

I'm reading all about the paint right now. I look forward to posting my reply.




The Conspirators.

Terror.

Control.

Who were the Conspirators?

Terror does not answer the How question.

Control of what?

[tsig]

Mackey, if you had bothered to read through all 2 pages of previous posts in order to gain better context as you commented, you would not have prematurely levied a fallacy. I can concede that I did not bold the "E)". Moving on...

...to the main event, this little 'science' paper;oh so hotly received by the 9/11 Movement, fiercely disseminated and criticised by Skeptics.

There are a few well known Truther-bloggers, who have managed to abandon some of the common-sense debunked CT's(No Planes, Fly-over,etc). This has created a fraction in what you refer to as the 911 Truth movement, where one side is accusing the other of being disinformation agents. You've got architects and engineers all over the place!

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

However, these 'moderate' truthers still cling hard to the "nano-thermite proven by science-paper" bit and even claim to have an answer to your paint theory(fact by you, theory by them), which I have yet, (but am eager to) to see succinctly debunked.

In football we used to say; last guy to the chalkboard wins the game. I mean, advantage Jones when it comes to the Internet wars.....(and please don't misrepresent me on this, I'm not saying the tm is winning)

One thing I've wondered, and I really don't want the usual and typical responses, is: How do we know that the entire thing isn't simply made up? Debating the science rests on the premise that something was legitimately found in Jones' WTC dust samples.....right? Based on Mackey's info, I would be led to believe this(real find) is correct.

As for paint, here's what Jones rebukes, which is reverbarated by these bloggers in addition to the explosiveness issue...

"Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent."

Page 21, Harrit et al. (Revised Feb 10, 2009)

Has this ever been discussed? And if so, is there a decent thread which I could be linked to s'il te plait?

Since we don't know where Jones got his samples this discussion is moot.

We do know that Jones made up the thermite theory years after 911 so your task is to show that thermite and 911 were ever associated before Jones mentioned it.

[LashL]

The upcoming National Geographic program described in this other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151554) should be of interest to those reading and/or posting in this thread.

[alienentity]

<snip>

As for paint, here's what Jones rebukes, which is reverbarated by these bloggers in addition to the explosiveness issue...

"Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent."

Page 21, Harrit et al. (Revised Feb 10, 2009)

Has this ever been discussed? And if so, is there a decent thread which I could be linked to s'il te plait?

Ryan already mentioned the analysis by Frédéric Henry-Couannier, who posts as Henryco at JREF. You can read about his ideas here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151009).

Also check this out:

http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth

No time to get into details, but it should provide you w/some further food for thought regarding chip composition and characteristics.

The main observation by Henryco that I would point out is that MEK really DID dissolve Dr. Jones' chips, although Jones denies this....but clearly the organic materials were dissolved.....

Jones is dancing around that point, rather desperately I think..

[triforcharity]

a mere ten tons of molten steel,with or without added thermite did not keep that pile hot for up to three months.

ding ding ding!!! What'a we have for him johnny!?!?!?!?!

[triforcharity]

It's posts like this that put me in mind of Steve's '1000 paid Shills'.

I know, you know and the viewing public know that no fires requiring oxygen could have burned down in the pile. And all fires require outside oxygen. Everybody knows that covering a burning pan of oil with a heavy cloth douses the flames by depriving the fire of oxygen so there is no chance at all of fires burning deep in the compacted mass of the pile.

I am not too interested in hearing about the coal seam in Nebraska or whereever it is that can burn forever with very little oxygen. Plainly there was no coal seam deep in the pile. Unless you know differently of course ? At this stage no debunker claim would surprise me.

So, Bull, I mean....Bill, can you please explain to me what firefighters in florida refer to as swamp fires?? These are fires that burn underground for MONTHS upon MONTHS!!

Also, could you please explain to me why you think that the fire would not have sucked in O2 for anywhere else?? That pile was not air-tight, as you, and that one kid Subway boy, might think. I think Heiwa has the same failed ideas on fire and its properties.

I would LOVE to tear this to shreads. Its FUN!!

[R.Mackey]

One thing I've wondered, and I really don't want the usual and typical responses, is: How do we know that the entire thing isn't simply made up? Debating the science rests on the premise that something was legitimately found in Jones' WTC dust samples.....right? Based on Mackey's info, I would be led to believe this(real find) is correct.

As for paint, here's what Jones rebukes, which is reverbarated by these bloggers in addition to the explosiveness issue... [MEK excuse reiterated]

We've discussed all of this to death. Just go to Google, type in "nanothermite MEK site:randi.org," and bask in the results.

Again, we know what he found is not thermite, nano or otherwise. His own results prove this. The energy content doesn't match. The elemental species don't match. The electron microscopy doesn't match. It's magnetic. He's showing you a picture of an apple while swearing profusely that it's really an orange, which is why nobody listens to him but the delusional.

Dr. Jones has also, since the paper came out, retrenched his claims on what the heck it was doing there if it was real in the first place. What he found is not enough thermite to cause any structural distress at all. If anything, it would have made the WTC stronger after ignition. So he's reduced to babbling about "igniters" for other, vast quantities of unspecified explosives, never mind that thermite would in fact be harder to ignite than those same explosives themselves...

Furthermore, as discussed before and as others have noted, MEK does not dissolve all paint. MEK also would dissolve some kinds of nanothermite. This isn't how you test to see if something is or is not paint. It's a hack move designed to impress the totally uneducated, and apparently in your case it succeeded.

We'll never know exactly what Dr. Jones has. He hasn't shared it with any neutral parties. The closest he's gotten to is Dr. Henry-Coannier, as I've already told you about, and those samples don't seem to match Dr. Jones's own claims.

I can't imagine any way for his claims to be more ludicrous or fraudulent. And if you can't see them for what they are, I have little hope for your progress.

[boloboffin]

It kills me to read about eyewitnesses to pools of molten steel and then see the claim that there was no oxygen under the pile for fires to burn.

Any conditions that would allow eyewitnesses would of necessity have enough oxygen to support those eyewitnesses, much less a fire.

[alienentity]

ImANiceGuy - followup quick post. Hope you will look at those links. The second one is obviously concerning the Norwegian scientists, namely 'Ola Nilsen, who is a nano-scientist at the University of Oslo'.

You should keep in mind that neither Jones nor Niels Harrit are recognized as experts in nano materials, particularly nanothermite.
Nor is anyone else on that paper, to my knowledge. I think this is a major shortcoming, as they really don't know enough about the materials they claim to have found.

Jones openly admits he has no idea how to make such materials. In retrospect this should bother serious observers, since he can't possibly know what he's talking about, by his own admission.
Harrit is certainly a trained and able chemist, but he again is relying on indirect references to these materials, as discussed at a 2001 conference and some papers.

Not one of the real experts mentioned in various papers or conferences, from any of the facilities mentioned, has been consulted or is a contributor to the Jones/Harrit paper.

This omission, IMHO, is a ridiculous lapse in basic competence on the part of this band of zealots. I mean, people who publish papers are not exactly in hiding, are they? In my view, anyway, one of the first things I would've done would be to send some chip samples to such experts as part of a preliminary inquiry - I don't think it would have been terribly difficult to confirm or eliminate the chips as being related to military nanothermite.

Truthers would argue, of course, that all the government scientists are 'in on it', which is absurd in the extreme - there is no proof whatsoever that there is any conspiracy, or any thermite or nanothermite for that matter, directed by the US government with regard to the WTC terror attack and disasters.

Sometimes smart, educated people believe stupid things. They just happen to be able to present their stupid ideas in more sophisticated ways than Joe Average.*

I strongly suspect that is the case with this Thermite/Thermate/nanothermite bafflegab.

*as Ryan Mackey has already pointed out, it is a fact that Jones, perhaps realizing that thin coatings of nanothermite couldn't possibly provide enough energy to demolish a steel building, has now offered that it might have been used as an igniter for conventional explosives. (see calculations by both Mr. Mackey and Dr. Greening on the subject).
You'll no doubt come to realize that Jones' theories are almost entirely discredited by their own internal inconsistencies and conflicts with established facts - we don't even need to discuss why conventional explosives could not have been used, I hope.

[alienentity]

The upcoming National Geographic program described in this other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151554) should be of interest to those reading and/or posting in this thread.

Merci

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I am not too interested in hearing about the coal seam in Nebraska or whereever it is that can burn forever with very little oxygen.

Maybe Bill would be interested to know that at least 4 subway tunnels fed oxygen to the WTC fire. That would be the PATH train from the West, the IND from the north, and the IRT from the South and North on the east side of the pile.

Each of the above consisted of parallel tubes and there might be more tunnels that I'm not aware of. They came in under the pile, which is exactly what you would want for your home furnace.

[bill smith]

Maybe Bill would be interested to know that at least 4 subway tunnels fed oxygen to the WTC fire. That would be the PATH train from the West, the IND from the north, and the IRT from the South and North on the east side of the pile.

Each of the above consisted of parallel tubes and there might be more tunnels that I'm not aware of. They came in under the pile, which is exactly what you would want for your home furnace.

The Twin Towers were built in the 'huge concrete basin' of which the slurry walls were part. This was built to keep the water seepage from the nearby Hudson river out Did the subway trains go through those slurry walls to the outside ?

[beachnut]

The Twin Towers were built in the 'huge concrete basin' of which the slurry walls were part. Did the subway trains go through those slurry walls to the outside ?
Top scores for research go to ...

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15018&stc=1&d=1250674971 She said there is no thermite used on 911 to destroy the WTC complex; go fish.

What do the subway tunnels have to do with thermite that was not used on 911?

oops the path tracks in the bottom of the bathtub?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/path.jpg

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
The Twin Towers were built in the 'huge concrete basin' of which the slurry walls were part. Did the subway trains go through those slurry walls to the outside ?

Some did. Some didn't. The "pile" vastly exceeded the area of the bathtub. All the tubes I've named fed the pile.

[bill smith]

Top scores for research go to ...

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=15018&stc=1&d=1250674971 She said there is no thermite used on 911 to destroy the WTC complex; go fish.

What do the subway tunnels have to do with thermite that was not used on 911?

Judy looks better every day.

[bill smith]

Some did. Some didn't. The "pile" vastly exceeded the area of the bathtub.

The ones that didn't go through the slurry walls went around the bathtub in circles ?

[beachnut]

The ones that didn't go through the slurry walls went around the bathtub in circles ?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pathtunnel.jpg

[twinstead]

I think bill's signature should be changed to "there comes a time when enough people tell you that you don't know what you are talking about that you have to listen to them"

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith
The ones that didn't go through the slurry walls went around the bathtub in circles ?


The pile vastly exceeded the area if the bathtub and the tunnels I referred to went into the pile. I know this first-hand.

[bill smith]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pathtunnel.jpg
Is there any special reason why this drawing is such terrible quality ?

[beachnut]

Is there any special reason why this drawing is such terrible quality ?
yes

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx oops, a real journal

[bill smith]

The pile vastly exceeded the area if the bathtub and the tunnels I referred to went into the pile. I know this first-hand.

On which basement floors did the trains run ? Or level with which basement levels ?Right at the bottom of the bathtub or halfway up ?

[beachnut]

On which basement floors did the trains run ? Or level with which basement levels ?Right at the bottom of the bathtub or halfway up ?
Doesn't your 911 cult of liars press package and big bag of delusional lies to post have any of this information in it? Oh, you want reality; got it.


Is there a thermite issue involved in your line of questioning?

Or do you stir things up and leave like over at this thread, http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5024858#post5024858 ; You post lies by an idiot on 911, Capt. Daniel Davis, and runaway like a vandal.

[Carlos]

I think Jones (and other thermiters) should first try to prove that thermite(ate) or super-hyper-ultra-mega-blaster-nanothermite charges can be used for cutting massive steel columns.

[alienentity]

I think Jones (and other thermiters) should first try to prove that thermite(ate) or super-hyper-ultra-mega-blaster-nanothermite charges can be used for cutting massive steel columns.

Exactly. not only that, but that the cutting charges can go off undetected on video or audio.....

I'd really, really love to see them try!:D

[bill smith]

yes

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx oops, a real journal

From one of your links;-
'' Concurrent with rescue work in New York, Port Authority engineers were investigating the condition of the PATH tunnels in Jersey City, New Jersey, where the Exchange Place Station, which was at an elevation 5 feet lower than the WTC PATH Station, had served as a sump for fire water, river water, and broken water mains discharging into the bathtub...''

The trains can't have been running very deep by the looks of it.

[BigAl]

yes


http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx oops, a real journal

Bill; Figure 9 (page 17) in that document was "my" subway and frequently my stop. The exit platform was a wide staircase that lead right into basement mall. It drew air from the south and the north of the collapse. The picture shows the west track (towards the tub). The east track was restored to service fairly quickly and I could see that debris on my way to work as they repaired the west track.

There were at least 4 other similar tunnels feeding air into the fire.

[bill smith]

Bill; Figure 9 (page 17) in that document was "my" subway and frequently my stop. The exit platform was a wide staircase that lead right into basement mall. It drew air from the south and the north tracks. The picture shows the west track (towards the tub). The east track was restored to service fairly quickly and I could see that debris on my way to work as they repaired the west track.

There were at least 4 other similar tunnels feeding air into the fire.

I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'

[lapman]

So bill thinks that the pile was some sort of hermetically sealed environment. What a bunch of crap. Please provide a source that supports your fantasy.

[beachnut]

I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'
The pile burned for months because there was little air; add lots of air burn fast; little air burn slow. Do you understand chemistry?

Are you allowed to use fire?

[alienentity]

I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'

That would only be true if there were absolutely no voids in the debris that would allow oxygen in.

Obviously the debris was porous enough to allow this to happen.

I would add that you have no evidence that this was not the case. There's no good reason to think otherwise. Don't forget that smoldering fires eventually can reach very high temps - that's a fact, easily verified.

There are many reports of GZ workers uncovering debris and having the fires suddenly flare up as additional air was supplied. This is direct evidence that they were in fact slowly cooking (like a charcoal fire) in a relatively oxygen-deprived environment.

[bill smith]

The pile burned for months because there was little air; add lots of air burn fast; little air burn slow. Do you understand chemistry?

Are you allowed to use fire?

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.

[alienentity]

Anyway, the main point is that you've tried to argue that there couldn't have been oxygen available to burn in the piles.

This idea has been refuted by basic evidence of the site layout, composition and arrangement of debris, and a number of other things.

Your argument doesn't square with the evidence, therefore it should be discarded.

Next big idea?

[lapman]

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.
Prove that 100% of all oxygen would have been used and that the was no possibility of oxygen getting to the fires.

[alienentity]

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.

Why are you so hostile and bitter towards basic science and chemistry? It doesn't help your understanding at all.

do you want to learn or not?

[bill smith]

That would only be true if there were absolutely no voids in the debris that would allow oxygen in.

Obviously the debris was porous enough to allow this to happen.

I would add that you have no evidence that this was not the case. There's no good reason to think otherwise. Don't forget that smoldering fires eventually can reach very high temps - that's a fact, easily verified.



There are many reports of GZ workers uncovering debris and having the fires suddenly flare up as additional air was supplied. This is direct evidence that they were in fact slowly cooking (like a charcoal fire) in a relatively oxygen-deprived environment.

Are you saying that the mass was nt really compacted ? That the half-million tons of a collapsed 110 story skyscraper compacted into only six basement levels would not be tightly compacted ? Or are you saying that most of the rubble was outside on the heaps ?

[beachnut]

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.
little air, burn long time

lots of air, burn short time

Tarzan know fire...

You don't

Which brings us to thermite, it burns without air and it burns fast. So thermite burns for seconds, WTC ruble burns for months. Simple chemistry! Got to love chemistry.
Why are you unable to grasp reality?

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith
I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass

Your "compacted mass" had rescue workers crawling all through it starting on 9/11 in attempt to find victims.

Your "compacted mass" had smoke coming out of it for weeks even with no open fire on the surface. When smoke rises from a fire, it sucks air in from below if it can. Tunnels provided air.

[bill smith]

Why are you so hostile and bitter towards basic science and chemistry? It doesn't help your understanding at all.

do you want to learn or not?

Do smouldering fires radiate a lot of heat ? Why do energy companies not use smouldering fires to produce electricity ? By your logic it would be a a far cheaper and cleaner method ? Failure to answer these questions convincingly will tell the reader why I do not place much faith in the teaching abiities of AAlienentity amongst some others here on the jref. This from long experience.

[Grizzly Bear]

Think of the debris pile fires as a smaller version of this:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ovJS1Em-6dg/Rfvvd8Ue0QI/AAAAAAAAFWc/WbnQJsH0dsk/s400/centralia1.jpg

Centralia, Pennsylvania is an example in which an underground coal fire ignited in 1962 is still burning after more than 40 years. As the coal below burned away, the ground above collapsed. Sinkholes and cracks opened up in various spots in the city. Roads split, making driving a hazardous task. The earth became so hot in places that falling snow immediately melted. During rainstorms, steam rose off the hot pavement as raindrops hit the ground. In some places, the ground temperature measured 750°F to 1,000°F.

[bill smith]

little air, burn long time

lots of air, burn short time

Tarzan know fire...

You don't

Which brings us to thermite, it burns without air and it burns fast. So thermite burns for seconds, WTC ruble burns for months. Simple chemistry! Got to love chemistry.
Why are you unable to grasp reality?

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons. Steel cools from the outside in and only a large well shielded quantity like this could have taken so long to cool despite the millions of gallons of water continuously pumped into the pile. One fireman said words to the effect 'we pumped lakes of water in there and it still burned'

[beachnut]

Do smouldering fires radiate a lot of heat ? Why do energy companies not use smouldering fires to produce electricity ? By your logic it would be a a far cheaper and cleaner method ? Failure to answer thes questions convincingly will tell the reader why I do not place much faith in the teaching abiities of AAlienentity amongst some others here on the jref. This from long experience.
Please stop making up junk ideas to go along with your ignorance on chemistry, energy, and reality.

Fuel is burned in the most efficient method for the job to be done. If a smoldering fire is most efficient they would use it, however this has nothing to do with the topic of the delusional scenario by Jones using thermite. Making up smart remarks would be great if they could transcend your massive lack of knowledge on the subject of fire, and burning materials.

The topic is thermite, try to relate your tangential questions to thermite. Your posts are only exposing your lack of knowledge.




... molten steel ...
You mean glowing, or melted flowing like a river? There was no thermite; Jones is a fraud.
... the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons. Steel cools from the outside in and only a large well shielded quantity like this could have taken so long to cool despite the millions of gallons of water continuously pumped into the pile. One fireman said words to the effect 'we pumped lakes of water in there and it still burned'

OMG - you posted melted steel nonsense. Your posts are getting to be total nonsense.

[tsig]

Is there any special reason why this drawing is such terrible quality ?

Bill the special shill.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith

... despite the millions of gallons of water continuously pumped into the pile. One fireman said words to the effect 'we pumped lakes of water in there and it still burned'



Bill really, really has no clue as to how many acres "the pile" was. By my calculation it was roughly the size of 24 (American) football fields.

I saw the pile.

As far as pumping water goes, it was cut way back late on 9/11 when the rescue workers realized they might drown the people that were still be alive under the debris (which is more evidence that the pile wasn't as "compacted as Bill believes) . Water was used selectivity for the first couple weeks. Nobody was alive longer than that.

Many sources for that, but I'll give you Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

How many other things can Bill get wrong?

[leftysergeant]

Do smouldering fires radiate a lot of heat ? Why do energy companies not use smouldering fires to produce electricity ? By your logic it would be a a far cheaper and cleaner method ?

Because it burns at a lower termperature and produces a lot more wierd chemical by-products.

Failure to answer these questions convincingly will tell the reader why I do not place much faith in the teaching abiities of AAlienentity amongst some others here on the jref.

It is not a lack of "faith," but of ability to learn when people with morte real-world experience try to teach you.

This from long experience.

Had any of your experience to do with fire fighting, I am sure you would make far fewer stupid remarks like the above.

[dtugg]

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons. Steel cools from the outside in and only a large well shielded quantity like this could have taken so long to cool despite the millions of gallons of water continuously pumped into the pile. One fireman said words to the effect 'we pumped lakes of water in there and it still burned'

You're insane.

[triforcharity]

I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'


It was not entirely compacted. As a fire burns, it will create its own winds, even a small fire. It will pull oxygen from any source that it needs to.

I can assure you, that if we were not pumping thousands of gallons of water in there a day, it would have burned for many more months. It did NOT melt any steel. This has been discussed to death. Yes, it melted our boots. Even a small fire will melt those boots. They are not fire proof, just resistant.

[bill smith]

Because it burns at a lower termperature and produces a lot more wierd chemical by-products.





It is not a lack of "faith," but of ability to learn when people with morte real-world experience try to teach you.



Had any of your experience to do with fire fighting, I am sure you would make far fewer stupid remarks like the above.

I think they'd probably find a way to filter those by-products if the figures were right. (as they would be)

Interesting that you agree that smouldering fires produce a lot less heat. I assume we can now rule them out as being the cause of the enormous heat in the pile. The heat that 'melted the guy's boots in a few hours ' 70 feet up on the surface.

'Morte' was a good choice of word to the describe the condition of current 9/11 Truth debunking.

[triforcharity]

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.


No, give it a little air, and it will smolder for quite some time. Give it lots of air, it will burn much faster, much hotter. Ie:Blast Furnace.

Did you google swamp fires by chance?? You should.

[triforcharity]

Are you saying that the mass was nt really compacted ? That the half-million tons of a collapsed 110 story skyscraper compacted into only six basement levels would not be tightly compacted ? Or are you saying that most of the rubble was outside on the heaps ?

Bill, the pile that I spent many weeks on was certainly not 100% in the basement. To assume that is retarded at best. If I recall correctly, that pile was quite high, maybe as much as ~8 storeys. I do not recall exactly how tall it was, but it wasn't in the basement. Maybe someone can provide that high-def picture that someone took. Some NASA or something like that.

[triforcharity]

Do smouldering fires radiate a lot of heat ? Why do energy companies not use smouldering fires to produce electricity ? By your logic it would be a a far cheaper and cleaner method ? Failure to answer these questions convincingly will tell the reader why I do not place much faith in the teaching abiities of AAlienentity amongst some others here on the jref. This from long experience.

This would not be effecient, because the amount of heat would not be near as much as an intense fire will.

I have spent years teaching Fire Science at the Florida Fire College, and have been a firefighter for over 15 years. I think I might know what I am talking about.

[triforcharity]

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons. Steel cools from the outside in and only a large well shielded quantity like this could have taken so long to cool despite the millions of gallons of water continuously pumped into the pile. One fireman said words to the effect 'we pumped lakes of water in there and it still burned'

Where is the HUGE chunk of molten steel that you refer to?? I have not seen it, nor has ANYONE else. The problem was by the time the water got down to the fire, it had turned to steam. Steam is not a good firefighting tool.

Yes, we did pump millions of gallons, but not like you think. If we could have pumped MILLIONS of gallons in over the course of 1 hour, or even 6 hours. We couldn't do that. It just wasn't possible.

[triforcharity]

I see that you have come back to the boots thing. Our boots are not designed to be exposed to direct heat (hot metal) for an extended period of time. They are designed for working in a fire, then getting a break. A normal firefighter will only be in direct heat contact for about 30-40 minutes. Not hours and hours like they were exposed to on 9/11 and following.

[bill smith]

Where is the HUGE chunk of molten steel that you refer to?? I have not seen it, nor has ANYONE else. The problem was by the time the water got down to the fire, it had turned to steam. Steam is not a good firefighting tool.



Yes, we did pump millions of gallons, but not like you think. If we could have pumped MILLIONS of gallons in over the course of 1 hour, or even 6 hours. We couldn't do that. It just wasn't possible.

That's really interesting. You agree then that the heat source was mostly at the bottom of the pile ?

[Grizzly Bear]

Where is the HUGE chunk of molten steel that you refer to?? I have not seen it, nor has ANYONE else.

Probably this compressed block of concrete:
LINKY (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/moltenmetal.jpg)
source (http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php)

They seem to have forgotten that while concrete itself doesn't rust, the rebar and decking used in it for reinforcement does, and it often "runs" on the surface of the concrete similar to these:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0FxJsNhWqLY/Si5NF8wwqwI/AAAAAAAAAZE/pfs1KIwoTfs/s400/concrete_rust.JPG

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/417097410_2e655cdea6.jpg?v=0

You'll probably recognize it... but these people tend to use the same things over and over.

[triforcharity]

That's really interesting. You agree then that the heat source was mostly at the bottom of the pile ?

No, I do not. Not at all. There was fire over many parts of the pile. Some high in the pile, some low. By then end of the first month, most of the fires were in the bottom by that time. And even though the fire is out, it still takes time for heat to cool, especially large amounts of it.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.


Per the chemistry calculations in the link, below, you are proposing that someone got as much as 30,000 tons of thermite into the pile with nobody noticing the delivery or the incendiary effect when ignited or the 10s of thousands of tons of slag, afterwords.

It takes 2 pounds of Thermite to make 1 pound of molten iron. By my calculation, that's almost 400,000 cubic feet of thermite.

A shipping container is about 1,300cu/ft. Do the math.

As I understand it, nothing "nano" affects this calculation in any significant way. If anything it makes it worse.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4477911#post4477911

( hope I got the math right today. )

[Thunder]

Whether quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.

fifteen thousand tons of molten steel?

lol.

that would be something to see. got any pics or evidence of this large quantity?

[Sam.I.Am]

Bill, the pile that I spent many weeks on was certainly not 100% in the basement. To assume that is retarded at best. If I recall correctly, that pile was quite high, maybe as much as ~8 storeys. I do not recall exactly how tall it was, but it wasn't in the basement. Maybe someone can provide that high-def picture that someone took. Some NASA or something like that.

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4754/5277x.jpg

[Thunder]

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4754/5277x.jpg

doesn't look molten to me.

[BigAl]

It's not exactly what you asked for but it does give one a sense of how large it was.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4754/5277x.jpg

Imagine that picture spread over 10s of acres or football fields worth of real estate. That picture is what the pile looked like after several days if not weeks needed to get equipment in and to work from the edge into the higher parts.

Here's the debris height map made days after the collapse. Bill's been shown this before.

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/geonews/october2001.pdf

[Thunder]

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/geonews/october2001.pdf

spent many months in that department. good folks. and I helped them pick up a large laser printer one block from WTC 7. my one official day at GZ, and the 2nd time I got sick from the air.

[WUBRINY63]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

[BigAl]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

[TokenMac]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?

Yes, it was there in before 2008, in 2001 to be exact:D

[ElMondoHummus]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

It's also a topic that's been studied academically for many years now.
Example I (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-3Y6HSHF-1B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=987351671&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43aed1693c1550a3904d1d992f8a7e28)
Example II (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-3VTFH8W-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=987351375&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e30522d22da301013f52eccb38527762)
Example III (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-3YRVR54-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=987349610&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4edd15bf89e4f2c2916348b35d2e1020)
Example IV (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3T-44M2DK1-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=987350716&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=01b5b02c6177b84c6a080e07f8e23533)

Yes, it was there in before 2008, in 2001 to be exact:D

And before September 11, 2001, the amount of expansion/contraction that was occuring was negligible and only due to the climate/weather. But on that day, well... you can say that conditions were such that temperatures were considerably outside the normal range. But we of course all knew that. :D

[alienentity]

<standard denial and misinterpretation removed for brevity>
Interesting that you agree that smouldering fires produce a lot less heat. I assume we can now rule them out as being the cause of the enormous heat in the pile. <snip more nonsense>

bill, you're not in a position to pass judgment on others around here. Have you paid much attention to the reaction your posts get? It's not very complimentary, and for this there are good reasons.

If you want to deny that oxygen deprived fires can get very hot, you go right ahead. It makes you look like an idiot. Y'see, this stuff has been well documented by people who study such things, and many of us have already availed ourselves of that information.

bill, have a look at this research page, from University of Manchester, England.
And, yes, you have once again been pwned. Tough being so wrong, idennit?
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

'It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time.'

Here's the chart for you. Note that the smoldering fire (blue line) reaches approx the same temp as the standard fire after only 2 hrs.

So long bill. You lose again..

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a8f61252183f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17379)

[WUBRINY63]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Not as a risk of the complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper.

[Myriad]

Not as a risk of the complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper.


Of course thermal expansion is on the test because of the collapse risk it can present. Why else would a FDNY officer care if a steel beam got a few inches longer?

(Maybe because if you're using a steel ladder and it's 9 inches too short, you can heat it up in the fire to fix it?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

(ETA: Or maybe it's so they know that if a guy on the street tries to sell them a hot steel beam, they're getting ripped off because it'll be shorter once it cools down?)

[TokenMac]

The risk of thermal expansion of beams in steel building fires has been on FDNY officer's test for decades.

Source: http://snurl.com/j5434 [Report From Ground Zero, page 7]

Because the officers in command at WTC on 9/11 passed that test, nobody died in the WTC7 collapse. The collapse was predicted for hours.

Not as a risk of the complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper.

Are you playing dumb, or do really think steel building can lose steel beams and not be at risk for collapse?:confused:

[WUBRINY63]

Of course thermal expansion is on the test because of the collapse risk it can present. Why else would a FDNY officer care if a steel beam got a few inches longer?

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years? A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.

[TokenMac]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years? And what was NIST's leading theory for those years? Also whhy do you think thermal expansion would have to be the "lead theory" for the report to be valid?
A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.
That is how most things fall.
If they didn't I don't think you could call it falling anymore, gravity is weird that way.:D

[Sam.I.Am]

Fire was a leading theory for the whole time. What people got wrong was the source (diesel fuel) instead of a plain old unchecked office fire and that the exterior damage didn't cause the collapse but did initiate the fires. Which way other than "Straight down" would you expect a steel framed building to fall?

[Myriad]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years?


Because the computational resources and manpower to do a complete dynamic analysis were not assembled by anyone else until NIST did it, and until that was done, heat weakening of the steel structure (which is another physical phenomenon well known to FDNY firefighters) as in the towers seemed the most likely answer. (Might as well ask, why wasn't heliocentrism ever a leading theory for over 5,000 years?)

A COMPLETE collapse.


Yeah, it didn't stop collapsing in mid-air. Hard to believe, right?

STRAIGHT down.


Yeah, it didn't collapse horizontally or upward. Hard to believe, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Thunder]

Then why wasn't it ever a leading theory for 7 years? A COMPLETE collapse. STRAIGHT down.

gravity tends to make things go straight down.

and it wasn't a complete collapse at first...as we saw that large pieces of the core stood after the initial collapse.

[WUBRINY63]

Fire was a leading theory for the whole time. What people got wrong was the source (diesel fuel) instead of a plain old unchecked office fire and that the exterior damage didn't cause the collapse but did initiate the fires. Which way other than "Straight down" would you expect a steel framed building to fall?

Steel structured highrise buildings have burned for days. Maybe a partial collapse would occur in some part of the building if it was completely engulfed in flames. But not often. Some buildings have fell over sideways from earthquakes or CD gone bad. No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

[Thunder]

No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either. All sorts of new and exciting things happened on 9-11.

what's your point? that something different happened on 9-11?

big deal.

[WUBRINY63]

No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either. All sorts of new and exciting things happened on 9-11.

what's your point? that something different happened on 9-11?

big deal.

I wasn't talking about the towers. I was talking about thermal expansion and WTC-7. Get off debunker autopilot. What's your point now?

[Grizzly Bear]

I always tell people who argue against first time in history; the idea that because something has never happened before makes the first time occurrence impossible is a paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox). And steel properties are extremely well documented with records of structural failure of varying degrees available solely due to fire. Would someone mind enlightening me why this would not eventually lead to something catastrophic like the progressive collapse of some of the tallest buildings in the world when the right conditions converge together on the same day? What logic still compels the same individuals to complain about this crap 8 years after something of significant scale took place, and something of equal scale transgressed as a result?

[Scott Sommers]

Truthtard: No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.
Properly trained engineer: No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either.
Why do I keep reading this point over and over? Does Truthtard think he'll catch that one reader who really doesn't know the answer and this will turn them like a Catholic saved by the Church of England?
Point 1: Truthtards are in the minority here.
Point 2: If they find it offensive being repeated referred to as morons, they should find arguments that are increasingly convincing or at least stop typing the same words over and over.

[Thunder]

I wasn't talking about the towers. I was talking about thermal expansion and WTC-7. Get off debunker autopilot. What's your point now?

I expect, say...100 posts before we say auf wiedersehen.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Truthtard: No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.
Properly trained engineer: No steel highrise has ever been bit by a full speed, fully fueled 757 either.
Why do I keep reading this point over and over? Does Truthtard think he'll catch that one reader who really doesn't know the answer and this will turn them like a Catholic saved by the Church of England?
Point 1: Truthtards are in the minority here.
Point 2: If they find it offensive being repeated referred to as morons, they should find arguments that are increasingly convincing or at least stop typing the same words over and over.

That's similar to an exchange that happened before you signed up between a debunker and a user name Homeland Incoherency.

My wife is bigger then WTC 7 and she didn't collapse when I lit a cigarette. Why is that debunker?
Homeland, what are you talking about?
My wife is fat and she didn't collapse. Debunk it debunker.
Homeland, an overweight woman is not a steel skyscraper
Why don't debunkers debunk anything?


Keep it on topic and civil. Everyone.

[WUBRINY63]

That's similar to an exchange that happened before you signed up between a debunker and a user name Homeland Incoherency.

What is your problem?

[Sam.I.Am]

Steel structured highrise buildings have burned for days. Maybe a partial collapse would occur in some part of the building if it was completely engulfed in flames. But not often. Some buildings have fell over sideways from earthquakes or CD gone bad. No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

Technically true. But this image shows that a tall steel structure can completely fail due to fire alone. What remained standing was concrete:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2120/madridremains5585256.jpg

You should also note that no steel framed high rise has ever "Fallen over sideways" in one piece in any situation involving what you described. Reinforced concrete structures? Yes, several times. That's because it's designed and engineered entirely differently from a steel building.

[WUBRINY63]

Technically true. But this image shows that a tall steel structure can completely fail due to fire alone. What remained standing was concrete:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2120/madridremains5585256.jpg



You should look at it again.

[alienentity]

<snip> Some buildings have fell over sideways from earthquakes or CD gone bad. No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

Except of course 3 steel hirise buildings in 2001. Apart from those, you mean.

[Sam.I.Am]

You should look at it again.

For what? I see 11 stories of steel that collapsed from fire. What do you see?

[WUBRINY63]

Except of course 3 steel hirise buildings in 2001. Apart from those, you mean.

oh. of course

[WUBRINY63]

For what? I see 11 stories of steel that collapsed from fire. What do you see?

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, this conversation has officially descended into stupidity due to the inability of one of the participants here to grasp the relevant issues. The performance of steel structures in fires is a well studied topic, from the controlled Cardington tests to the post mortems of events such as the Broadgate fire. The fact that effects such as creep can lead to local failures is quite known, and the fact that the accumulation of local failures - whether from fires or other events - can add up to a progressive collapse is also well known. Whether those structures are bridges, small buildings, or skyscrapers is irrelevant; the point is how a structure's design responds to the effects of a fire. And that is not something that can be determined by oversimplifications, such as sweeping statements regarding skyscrapers and fires.

The fact that some structures collapse from fire and others do not are directly attributable to differences in design. Arup's Susan Lamont addressed this exact issue in her thesis (http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/PPT/Lamont_ppt.pdf), modeling two similar but not exactly identical structures performance in identical fires. Simple issues, such as distances between columns and therefore span lengths can make the difference between a structure standing or collapsing. Simply stating that skyscrapers have never collapsed in the past due to fire is a demonstration of complete ignorance of the fire-structural response knowledge accumulated over the years. A proper appraisal considers design elements. An improper one ignores differences between buildings, and that would be shallow and erroneous thinking.

Recall the conclusion that Arup came to about the Twin Towers (I know most of the discussion so far is on Tower 7, but this still applies): They are of the opinion that the main towers would have collapsed from the extent of the fires alone, even in the absence of fireproofing dislodgement and impact damage. Whether they're correct or not is a matter where experts can legitimately differ, but the point is that this engineering firm has concluded that the design of the main towers was susceptible to complete failure from the fires alone. They didn't allow themselves to be mired by the misapplied fact that skyscrapers had not collapsed prior to 9/11 due to fire; they instead analyzed the case on it's own merits. The same thing applies to 7 World Trade: It is improper to simply say that skyscrapers have never failed due to thermal expansion effects and thus write off the explantion of 7's collapse. It is correct to study what the interplay between elements of the structure were in the face of fires and damage from falling debris. And this is what NIST did.

The ultimate point here is that it is openly erroneous to impugn the notion of thermal expansion contributing to WTC 7's failure. First of all, that was only one of the failures that contributed to the collapse. Second, it's a well known phenomenon who's effects are well documented. Third, its contribution to the collapse also depends on the susceptibility of the building's design to progressive collapse from failures induced by the expansion. None of that is dependent on whether the building is a skyscraper or not, and all of it is derived from study of past fires. It is not a thesis built out of thin air, and it is exceptionally ignorant to treat it as incorrect or unapplicable.

[TokenMac]

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?
Glasses can't solve selective vision.

Technically true. But this image shows that a tall steel structure can completely fail due to fire alone. What remained standing was concrete:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2120/madridremains5585256.jpg

[TexasJack]

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?

Hey, what about barbeque grills, why don't they melt and collapse? Ever think about that? Something tells me you have. lol

[Sam.I.Am]

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?

Ahhhh. I see you missed where I said that the part remaining standing was concrete. Apples and oranges. That steel portion of the building did completely collapse without an airplane or debris hitting it, and wonder of wonders it did so straight down. Why golly gee it's almost within its own footprint too. Will wonders never cease?

[WUBRINY63]

Ahhhh. I see you missed where I said that the part remaining standing was concrete.

I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.

Apples and oranges. That steel portion of the building did completely collapse without an airplane or debris hitting it, and wonder of wonders it did so straight down. Why golly gee it's almost within its own footprint too. Will wonders never cease?

"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.

[tsig]

Hey, what about barbeque grills, why don't they melt and collapse? Ever think about that? Something tells me you have. lol

And heat can't melt steel.:)

[AJM8125]

Hey, what about barbeque grills, why don't they melt and collapse? Ever think about that? Something tells me you have. lol

Or serial numbers

Ya know what I mean, debunker?

Serial numbers from Lowes

Is that what you're saying?

Why am I double spacing?

I doesn't make sense.

UnLoved?

Help me?

Please?

[alienentity]

I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.



"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.

And how is any of this relevant to the question of thermite?....

This is:

http://darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

[Sam.I.Am]

I didn't miss what you said. You missed most of the picture.

What? That the concrete remained standing while the 11 stories of steel failed due to fire alone? Tell me O' enlightened one, what did I miss?

"portion" the operative term there. Not complete. And after how many hours? Keep wondering but pretending not to. Good for you.Yes, the steel portion, not the concrete portion. As far as how long it lasted I couldn't say with any accuracy. I can't say. What I can say is that this picture:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8596/madridwindsortower02114.jpg

was taken while it was fully involved and nearing collapse and that the fire started at the 21'st floor at ~midnight and propagated downwards much slower than it did upwards (as all fires do). Seeing as it's still dark outside I can only make a logical assumption based upon the failing steel columns visible in this photo that this happened before daybreak. So I'll make a guess at no more than 6 hours from fire initiation to collapse. There's more but I await your response to these basic facts before I go on.

I take it back. Looking closer at the picture I think that it might be a PhotoShopped picture and without outside verification I won't use it as evidence. I still stand by everything else I said excluding that image.

[TruthersLie]

Steel structured highrise buildings have burned for days. Maybe a partial collapse would occur in some part of the building if it was completely engulfed in flames. But not often. Some buildings have fell over sideways from earthquakes or CD gone bad. No fire has ever caused the complete collapse of any steel structured highrise ever.

Amazing that you compare apples to oranges.

which open floor steel framed skyscrapers burned for days... I'd love to see this list.

Please... Which ones?

ETA: First time in history cannard, REALLY? Wow... I love how twoofs completely do this....
August 1945 first time in history a single bomb destroyed a city.. happened 2x. Were they fake?
1959 first time a person ever went into orbit... are satelights fake?

Really? Honestly? Wow... you (and most twoofs arguments) are a very damning indictment of public education around the world. Absolutely amazing.

[bill smith]

bill, you're not in a position to pass judgment on others around here. Have you paid much attention to the reaction your posts get? It's not very complimentary, and for this there are good reasons.

If you want to deny that oxygen deprived fires can get very hot, you go right ahead. It makes you look like an idiot. Y'see, this stuff has been well documented by people who study such things, and many of us have already availed ourselves of that information.

bill, have a look at this research page, from University of Manchester, England.
And, yes, you have once again been pwned. Tough being so wrong, idennit?
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm

'It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time.'

Here's the chart for you. Note that the smoldering fire (blue line) reaches approx the same temp as the standard fire after only 2 hrs.

So long bill. You lose again..

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a8f61252183f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17379)

[Sigh]....A smoulering fire may become very hot internally while emitting or radiating very little heat except by conduction to those items directly in contact with it. So we are talking about isolated pockets of smoulering fires in the rubble (if that is true at all). I believe that only about 3% of the total material in the rubble was combustible which further rules against the putative smouldering fires being of any significance.

I'm sure that you already know all this stuff. The discriminating reader may not appreciate being misled.

I don't get rave reviews here on the jref. What else would you expect ? The proportions here are about 500 debunkers to every 10 truthers. We still run you ragged. Try going on a Truther forum and see how long your tall tales will survive.

[dtugg]

We still run you ragged.

By "run you ragged," I assume that you mean, "provide you with excellent free entertainment at our expense." Because that's all you twoofers are. A joke; good for nothing except unintentional comedy. And you especially bill.

[BigAl]

Not as a risk of the complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper.

Then why did the firemen predict collapse hours in advance?

"complete collapse" is 20/20 hindsight. WHile it was burning, nobody could say exactly how it would come down.

Is WUBRINY63 a sock puppet? It sure feels like it.

His intellectual insights are sufficiently low to make me put him on my ignore list.

Bye.

[Thunder]

I think either you or I need glasses if you think that looks anything like a complete collapse. We are trying to compare what happened to the buildings on 9/11 correct?

the WTC towers and WTC 7 had a design different then pretty much every other steel structure on Earth. it is pretty much worthless to compare fires in a typical steel high rise with a fire in WTC 1, 2, and 7.

as far as I have read and seen, significant exterior damage and a raging fire in WTC 1 and 2 pretty much ensured a collapse. the designers should have considered this.

[Grizzly Bear]

This first time crap has been dealt with a million times... If he can't comprehend it, then too bad. Don't waste your time explaining something which he has no intention of listening to. It's derailing this entire damn thread.


Per the chemistry calculations in the link, below, you are proposing that someone got as much as 30,000 tons of thermite into the pile with nobody noticing the delivery or the incendiary effect when ignited or the 10s of thousands of tons of slag, afterwords.

It takes 2 pounds of Thermite to make 1 pound of molten iron. By my calculation, that's almost 400,000 cubic feet of thermite.

A shipping container is about 1,300cu/ft. Do the math.

As I understand it, nothing "nano" affects this calculation in any significant way. If anything it makes it worse.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4477911#post4477911

(hope I got the math right today. )

Explosives would have been too loud, and thermite would have been a brilliantly bright display of fireworks in broad daylight. It doesn't last long enough sustain a reaction for months at a time, and the chaotic nature of the collapses would have almost assured that the chemistry of the Iron oxide and aluminum oxide powders was ruined. The numbers required to make "tons" on molten steel is absurd. What more is needed to call BS the thermite debate?

[Grizzly Bear]

[Sigh]....A smoulering fire may become very hot internally while emitting or radiating very little heat except by conduction to those items directly in contact with it. So we are talking about isolated pockets of smoulering fires in the rubble (if that is true at all). I believe that only about 3% of the total material in the rubble was combustible which further rules against the putative smouldering fires being of any significance.

I'm sure that you already know all this stuff. The discriminating reader may not appreciate being misled.

Okay, we know what you believe. But what are the facts to substantiate your belief? Is there accurate data that demonstrates the fires would not have been capable of smoldering for months?

[Thunder]

Okay, we know what you believe. But what are the facts to substantiate your belief? Is there accurate data that demonstrates the fires would not have been capable of smoldering for months?

facts??? we don't need no stinkin' facts!!

we got da truth!!!!!

[BigAl]

Bump for Bill. I want to hear that he knows he is suggesting that as much as 30,000 tons (400,000 cubic ft) of thermite was carried to the pile and ignited and nobody noticed.

Originally Posted by bill smith

Whether the heat was caused by molten steel with or without added thermite the quantity of molten steel was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.


Source
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5031517#post5031517

[ElMondoHummus]

Any attempt to downplay the amount of combustibles in the rubble piles is insane and stupid. What matters is the total amount of combustibles and the amount of potential combustion energy that it represents. Does anyone remember the Delta Group study (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm)? They concluded that the total energy available for release through combustion was 43 trillion joules. As a comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 63 trillion joules (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MuhammadKaleem.shtml). The amount of potential combustible energy available in the piles was on the same order of magnitude as the energy release of an atomic bomb. The difference is that an A-bomb's release happens all at once.

It's just plain dumb to try to downplay the amount of burnable material in the rubble piles. Just plain dumb.

[bill smith]

Any attempt to downplay the amount of combustibles in the rubble piles is insane and stupid. What matters is the total amount of combustibles and the amount of potential combustion energy that it represents. Does anyone remember the Delta Group study (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm)? They concluded that the total energy available for release through combustion was 43 trillion joules. As a comparison, the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 63 trillion joules (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MuhammadKaleem.shtml). The amount of potential combustible energy available in the piles was on the same order of magnitude as the energy release of an atomic bomb. The difference is that an A-bomb's release happens all at once.

It's just plain dumb to try to downplay the amount of burnable material in the rubble piles. Just plain dumb.

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

[alienentity]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

Here's a metal object that weighs 15,000 tons. It represents the amount of melted steel bill thinks existed somewhere in the debris.......
Of course, there is a tiny, tiny chance he might be wrong.:rolleyes:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a90143bdd9ff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17384)

The RMS Republic, White Star Line - 15,400 tons displacement

[BigAl]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

Is that 3% before or after someone trucked in the 30,000 tons of Thermite as you seem to believe happened?

[alienentity]

bills latest antics are a reminder that, in order to cling to the contrarian truther position (ie: whatever you say, truthers must believe the opposite) you must throw Occam's Razor out the window.

So, while a normal person would accept that there was a huge amount of combustible material in the debris, and that it was smoldering for weeks if not months, a truther must not only deny that there was oxygen, combustible material or significant smoldering fires, but must additionally claim a completely different, fantastical reason for the fires - namely expressed in the statement of bill smith thus:

The quantity of molten steel(with or without added thermite) was no mere ten tons or so. No..we are talking in the thousands of tons. Maybe ten or fifteen thousand tons.

I guess if you're going to profer an evidence-free theory, y'might as well go big, huh?

Why not go for 100,000 tons of melted steel? Since there's no evidence of even a single ton of melted steel, what difference does it make?

While you're at it, it's also equally plausible that a death-ray weapon from outer space melted the steel and vaporized it before it hit the ground, which is why FEMA didn't find any.

Go big bill, don't hold back! Make Judy Wood proud.

[Thunder]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble. As I undersstand it that worked out at about three parts per hundred parts or 3% if you prefer. Do you think it might have been as high as four parts per hundred parts ? Five parts maybe...?

still waiting on that evidence for 10,000 tons of molten steel at GZ. any day now?

[alienentity]

Assuming bill's 3% figure is even remotely accurate (just for amusement purposes), the amount of combustible material (3% of 1 million tons) from just the towers, were it to be loaded onto trucks,would require 10 semitrailers, each hauling six full loads a day for 23 straight days.
Based on this proposal to haul 30,000 tons of dirt (http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1297742789/At-least-the-30-000-tons-of-dirt-is-free).

[bill smith]

Here's a metal object that weighs 15,000 tons. It represents the amount of melted steel bill thinks existed somewhere in the debris.......
Of course, there is a tiny, tiny chance he might be wrong.:rolleyes:



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a90143bdd9ff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17384)

The RMS Republic, White Star Line - 15,400 tons displacement

Melted down into something like a mass of 15,000 tons of iron I think that would cover it nicely. Of course there would be some quantity of concrete and other tough material that could survive the tremendous heat attached to the exterior of the main block where the forced cooling bagan with the addition of the 'lakes' of water.. I guess the temperature would have been 4,000 degrees centrigade plus to start with and cooling very very slowly. It took almost three months to cool in the end..

[Thunder]

Melted down into something like a mass of 15,000 tons of iron I think that would cover it nicely.

any evidence for this 10,000 tons of molten steel?

or are we just pissing in the wind by asking you for corroborating evidence?

[Grizzly Bear]

I prefer to see it as units of combustible materials expressed as a percentage of the total mount of rubble.
Which is independent from the amount of combustible energy the pile had. The fires produced by 6 floors worth of office contents were enormous to begin with; try adding the remainder from both towers in one gigantic fire pit and then slow the release of that energy below the rates experienced when the fires were burning at their most intense inside the towers prior to collapse.

[alienentity]

<removed material>.. I guess <removed material>

Operative phrase: 'I guess'.

Sure thing. Ignore the facts, ignore the science and you've got 9/11 'truth' at its finest.

Well done bill, you're an exemplar of the breed.

[alienentity]

Which is independent from the amount of combustible energy the pile had. The fires produced by 6 floors worth of office contents were enormous to begin with; try adding the remainder from both towers in one gigantic fire pit and then slow the release of that energy below the rates experienced when the fires were burning at their most intense inside the towers prior to collapse.

bill is denying both the presence of sufficient combustible materials and the presence of oxygen - in spite of the facts that both of those existed in abundance.

Denying reality is his M.O. He prefers his truther fantasies.

[bill smith]

any evidence for this 10,000 tons of molten steel?

or are we just pissing in the wind by asking you for corroborating evidence?

Don't doubt it Parky. Check out this video with Eric Hufschmidt. Have a look at ' the meteorite '. Then read my last post and see if you can work out where ' the meteorite 'came from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

[ElMondoHummus]

Assuming bill's 3% figure is even remotely accurate (just for amusement purposes), the amount of combustible material (3% of 1 million tons) from just the towers, were it to be loaded onto trucks,would require 10 semitrailers, each hauling six full loads a day for 23 straight days.
Based on this proposal to haul 30,000 tons of dirt (http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1297742789/At-least-the-30-000-tons-of-dirt-is-free).

Well, in truth it doesn't matter worth a damn what the percentage is. Your point is taken and valid, but in terms of the fire temperature as a function of the amount of combustibles (what another poster is obviously claiming), it doesn't matter, not in this case. The sheer amount is what counts. Again, 'X' number of joules in a given volume can reach 'Y' temperatures depending on the volume the conbustibles are contained in, the radiative/insulative properties of that volume, and the rate of combustion. Given what we know about the area and can roughly estimate as the radiative vs. insulative capacities of the pile, and given the 43 terajoules that are available, it is possible to work out a range of valid, possible temperatures. I'll leave the better versed physics folks here to work out the actual numbers, but given the overwhelming amount of energy available alone, I don't see reported temperatures as being anything unexpected. Not one bit. Not for a pile that's even only somewhat insulative.

[Grizzly Bear]

Don't doubt it Parky. Check out this video with Eric Hufschmidt. Have a look at ' the meteorite '. Then read my last post and see if you can ork out where ' the meteorite 'came from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

Please try to keep up... we've been through this before

Probably this compressed block of concrete:
LINKY (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/moltenmetal.jpg)
source (http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php)

They seem to have forgotten that while concrete itself doesn't rust, the rebar and decking used in it for reinforcement does, and it often "runs" on the surface of the concrete similar to these:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0FxJsNhWqLY/Si5NF8wwqwI/AAAAAAAAAZE/pfs1KIwoTfs/s400/concrete_rust.JPG

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/417097410_2e655cdea6.jpg?v=0

You'll probably recognize it... but these people tend to use the same things over and over.

bill is denying both the presence of sufficient combustible materials and the presence of oxygen - in spite of the facts that both of those existed in abundance.

Denying reality is his M.O. He prefers his truther fantasies.
It's an unfortunate trend in more than just the claims bill is making. And most truther claims can be shot down by pointing these out since they're flaws in premise which makes any argument based on them irrelevant.

[bill smith]

Well, in truth it doesn't matter worth a damn what the percentage is. Your point is taken and valid, but in terms of the fire temperature as a function of the amount of combustibles (what another poster is obviously claiming), it doesn't matter, not in this case. The sheer amount is what counts. Again, 'X' number of joules in a given volume can reach 'Y' temperatures depending on the volume the conbustibles are contained in, the radiative/insulative properties of that volume, and the rate of combustion. Given what we know about the area and can roughly estimate as the radiative vs. insulative capacities of the pile, and given the 43 terajoules that are available, it is possible to work out a range of valid, possible temperatures. I'll leave the better versed physics folks here to work out the actual numbers, but given the overwhelming amount of energy available alone, I don't see reported temperatures as being anything unexpected. Not one bit. Not for a pile that's even only somewhat insulative.

I invite the discriminating reader to assess whether this guy and Grizzly are rying to play you for fools. They seem to be saying that the combustible material (3%) would burn as a single mass and create tremendous heat despite being compressed. Clearly they are asking you to ignore the fact that this 3% of combustible material would be homogenously spread throughout the other 97% of non-combustible rubble. I leave it to you to decide what you want to believe.

[alienentity]

I invite the discriminating reader to assess whether this guy and Grizzly are rying to play you for fools. They seem to be saying that the combustible material (3%) would burn as a single mass and create tremendous heat despite being compressed. Clearly they are asking you to ignore the fact that this 3% of combustible material would be homogenously spread throughout the other 97% of non-combustible rubble. I leave it to you to decide what you want to believe.

OK, this is the last reference to bill I'm going to make today. It's now getting boring.
bill smith has just made a false claim: 'They seem to be saying that the combustible material (3%) would burn as a single mass'

Nowhere have they said anything of the sort. This completely misrepresents the argument. The argument is that there was an enormous quantity of combustible material present in the debris.

There is simply no doubt this is true. bill cannot accept the truth, so is instead manufacturing ideas out of thin air, misquoting people, and generally attempting to muddy the waters.

Nor has bill been able to prove why his 3% claim is credible in the first place.
Nor has he been able to show proof of 15,000 tons of melted steel
Nor show the vast quantities of thermite - which would have left huge, and I mean gigantic, amounts of molten iron and other evidence. That didn't happen.

Enough already. I'm tired of playing whack-a-troll today.

[bill smith]

OK, this is the last reference to bill I'm going to make today. It's now getting boring.
bill smith has just made a false claim: 'They seem to be saying that the combustible material (3%) would burn as a single mass'

Nowhere have they said anything of the sort. This completely misrepresents the argument. The argument is that there was an enormous quantity of combustible material present in the debris.

There is simply no doubt this is true. bill cannot accept the truth, so is instead manufacturing ideas out of thin air, misquoting people, and generally attempting to muddy the waters.

Nor has bill been able to prove why his 3% claim is credible in the first place.
Nor has he been able to show proof of 15,000 tons of melted steel
Nor show the vast quantities of thermite - which would have left huge, and I mean gigantic, amounts of molten iron and other evidence. That didn't happen.

Enough already. I'm tired of playing whack-a-troll today.

Not even on your very best day Alienentity.

[MIKILLINI]

I invite the discriminating reader to assess whether this guy and Grizzly are rying to play you for fools. They seem to be saying that the combustible material (3%) would burn as a single mass and create tremendous heat despite being compressed. Clearly they are asking you to ignore the fact that this 3% of combustible material would be homogenously spread throughout the other 97% of non-combustible rubble. I leave it to you to decide what you want to believe.

Clearly Bill do you dismiss the possibility of oxygen reaching the smoldering rubble, thus the pile reacts similar to a bellows?
Do you dismiss the possibility of contents (incombustible singularly) mixed together can become combustible and prolong the smoldering?

[Dave Rogers]

I invite the discriminating reader to assess whether this guy and Grizzly are rying to play you for fools.

As opposed to the guy who thinks there was a solid mass of steel weighing 15,000 tons left behind after the rubble was removed, but nobody noticed it. He's playing himself for a fool.

Dave

[bill smith]

As opposed to the guy who thinks there was a solid mass of steel weighing 15,000 tons left behind after the rubble was removed, but nobody noticed it. He's playing himself for a fool.

Dave
I think you already know that I can justify what I say Dave. I am not ready to administer the estocada just yet though.

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact that there were hot spots and not-so-hot areas, in addition to the fact that there were ranges of temps measured in different areas on the piles gives lie to the claim that combustibles were distributed evenly throughout. That's just an inane claim. Some areas had little to burn, other spots had lots, and in those areas with higher concentrations of combustibles, plus whatever other characteristics of that spot lent itself to serious burning (such as increased airflow), you had higher temperatures.

On top of that, the sheer amount of combustibles also lends itself to a longer period of burning. There is no incendiary or other demolitions agent that would account for the months long pile burn. That is strictly due to the amount of flammable contents alone.

This is already a decided issue. None of the characteristics of the rubble pile fires lend themselves in any way to any notion that those fires were started by agents like thermite or demolitions explosives. None.

[Grizzly Bear]

I am not ready to administer the estocada just yet though.

Well you just haven't found anyone dumb enough on this sub-forum to confuse concrete with molten steel. Keep digging :)

[bill smith]

The fact that there were hot spots and not-so-hot areas, in addition to the fact that there were ranges of temps measured in different areas on the piles gives lie to the claim that combustibles were distributed evenly throughout. That's just an inane claim. Some areas had little to burn, other spots had lots, and in those areas with higher concentrations of combustibles, plus whatever other characteristics of that spot lent itself to serious burning (such as increased airflow), you had higher temperatures.

On top of that, the sheer amount of combustibles also lends itself to a longer period of burning. There is no incendiary or other demolitions agent that would account for the months long pile burn. That is strictly due to the amount of flammable contents alone.

This is already a decided issue. None of the characteristics of the rubble pile fires lend themselves in any way to any notion that those fires were started by agents like thermite or demolitions explosives. None.

Don't bet your proverbial on it.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well you just haven't found anyone dumb enough on this sub-forum to confuse concrete with molten steel. Keep digging :)

Oh, gawd, lemme guess: He brought up the "meteorite (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106240)" thing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4455112#post4455112) in a previous post, right?

Jeez... the information is out there, and yet these guys repeat it as if it bolsters their claim. That's just incredible.

[beachnut]

Thermal Expansion at WTC-7. Was it there or not before 2008?
Started at the big bang you are billions and billions of years behind; get an education and "Just Say No"; most of the time. Oh, about 13.73 billion years by some estimates. Do you know what day it is?

[MIKILLINI]

Don't bet your proverbial on it.

Considering the position you are defending, this is good advice for yourself.

[Galileo]

Not sure what the point of this thread is. The thermite has already been found.

A lot of kooks on the Internet are anti-science.

[beachnut]

Don't doubt it Parky. Check out this video with Eric Hufschmidt. Have a look at ' the meteorite '. Then read my last post and see if you can work out where ' the meteorite 'came from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4
You dig up lies and post them. You have a perfect record of posting dirt dumb ideas based on your uncanny ability to pick only the delusions of 911 to post. What ever you post is a big lie; you are a perfect indicator that what ever you post is the opposite of reality.


The meteorite is 3 or 4 floors of the WTC crushed by part of the 600 TONS of TNT kinetic energy released (E=mgh) when the WTC collapsed. There is paper unburned in the "meteorite", there could be parts of people in the 3 or 4 floors. Each floor of the WTC is only 4 inches of concrete with steel framing. Your weak apologies for terrorists is your betrayal to those who died on 911. Thanks for being all you can be posting delusions about molten iron. You post what dolts make up and you can't figure out they are wrong. You should have taken physics.

Failure to present evidence to prove your insane Dr Jones thermite claims; you posted lies.

The "meterorite" has paper in it; that must be the new super secret low temperature molten Iron invented by Thermite Jones. Is Jones this stupid? Why did you post insanity produced by morons?

[twinstead]

Not sure what the point of this thread is. The thermite has already been found.

A lot of kooks on the Internet are anti-science.


But that's not true, and has been shown to be not true. Nobody who actually knows what he is talking about thinks it's true. Just you, and a few more malcontents and ideologues on internet forums. You can't just keep saying it over and over again and have it magically become true.

[Thunder]

Don't doubt it Parky. Check out this video with Eric Hufschmidt. Have a look at ' the meteorite '. Then read my last post and see if you can work out where ' the meteorite 'came from ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9nE372Ymc4

I don't watch 9-11 Denier videos produced by Holocaust-Deniers.

if you have some info to provide, feel free to write it yourself.

please tell me you have the guts to actually READ and ABSORB the information that you rely upon.

please, oh please tell me you aren't one of those utterly pathetic 9-11 Deniers that simply relies on 9-11 Truth videos.

:(

I became a 9-11 Truther after watching "In Plain Site" and "Loose Change".

I then gave up on 9-11 Truth theories and accepted the reality of what happened on that aweful day, by reading 9-11 conspiracy theory debunking websites.

You see, Bill Smith, reading is fundamental.

[TexasJack]

But that's not true, and has been shown to be not true. Nobody who actually knows what he is talking about thinks it's true. Just you, and a few more malcontents and ideologues on internet forums. You can't just keep saying it over and over again and have it magically become true.

You're trying to reason with someone who thinks he's Galileo.

[Galileo]

But that's not true, and has been shown to be not true. Nobody who actually knows what he is talking about thinks it's true. Just you, and a few more malcontents and ideologues on internet forums. You can't just keep saying it over and over again and have it magically become true.

Wrong, it has proven to be true, the scientists found the thermite.

You cite kooks and conspiracy wackos who have never examined the WTC dust, nor have the proper academic credentials to understand the science.

[twinstead]

Wrong, it has proven to be true, the scientists found the thermite.

You cite kooks and conspiracy wackos who have never examined the WTC dust, nor have the proper academic credentials to understand the science.

You're welcome to your opinion. Reality doesn't' have to conform to it, however. You disagree? THEN CONVINCE SOMEBODY WHO CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAT YOU'RE RIGHT. Jones hasn't, maybe you'll have better luck.

[Galileo]

You're trying to reason with someone who thinks he's Galileo.

You have not studied the WTC dust. PhD scientists who studied the WTC dust found nano-thermite in the dust. They also found the byproducts of thermite reactions.

You don't know what you are talking about. Nuts on the Internet make wild assertions all the time. I stick with sound science and experts.

[Galileo]

You're welcome to your opinion. Reality doesn't' have to conform to it, however. You disagree? THEN CONVINCE SOMEBODY WHO CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAT YOU'RE RIGHT. Jones hasn't, maybe you'll have better luck.

It's not my opinion. It is a finding by PhD scientists who examined the WTC dust. Your ignorant opinion means nothing.

[beachnut]

Not sure what the point of this thread is. The thermite has already been found.

A lot of kooks on the Internet are anti-science.
No thermite releases a specific amount of energy and Jones did not find thermite. You can't do science so your claim you are Galileo and suffer from a serious delusion. It is no surprising you grasp Jones' delusion of thermite and act like he did science when he fails to get momentum correct. It is morons like Jones who put the nut in "nutty professor".

I love your evidence presenting the word of kook, Dr Jones, as your only proof for your moronic delusion. You can't explain how much thermite was used to destroy the towers, you can't explain how it was fused, you can't explain how it was placed, you can't explain why there is no evidence on the steel, you can't explain why not a single ounce of thermite by-products were found, you can only spew a delusion from the personable failed physics professor Jones who made up thermite. Jones made it up and due to complete lack of knowledge on 911, chemistry, physics, all science, you fell for his nut case conclusion.

You and Jones share a nut case idea and you think you are Galileo. A double treat; two lies in one. You were duped by a dolt on 911.

[twinstead]

It's not my opinion. It is a finding by PhD scientists who examined the WTC dust. Your ignorant opinion means nothing.

Whatever you say, dude. Whatever you say. :boggled:

[Galileo]

No thermite releases a specific amount of energy and Jones did not find thermite. You can't do science so your claim you are Galileo and suffer from a serious delusion. It is no surprising you grasp Jones' delusion of thermite and act like he did science when he fails to get momentum correct. It is morons like Jones who put the nut in "nutty professor".

I love your evidence presenting the word of kook, Dr Jones, as your only proof for your moronic delusion. You can't explain how much thermite was used to destroy the towers, you can't explain how it was fused, you can't explain how it was placed, you can't explain why there is no evidence on the steel, you can't explain why not a single ounce of thermite by-products were found, you can only spew a delusion from the personable failed physics professor Jones who made up thermite. Jones made it up and due to complete lack of knowledge on 911, chemistry, physics, all science, you fell for his nut case conclusion.

You and Jones share a nut case idea and you think you are Galileo. A double treat; two lies in one. You were duped by a dolt on 911.

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Jones found the byproducts of thermite in the WTC dust a few years ago. Then other scientists, including Neils Harrit, confirmed that the thermite byproducts came from actual thermite. Harrit found the thermite in the dust.

You have not studied the WTC dust, so your ignorant opinion means nothing. Face it, pal, you lose. You are soft on mass murder which is another reason to ignore you.

Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, and Dr. Jones oppose mass murder. So do I.

:jaw-dropp

[Galileo]

Whatever you say, dude. Whatever you say. :boggled:

Not whatever I say, dude. The scientists who studied the WTC dust say it, they found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

If this simple fact boggles you, then seek help.

[beachnut]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. Jones found the byproducts of thermite in the WTC dust a few years ago. Then other scientists, including Neils Harrit, confirmed that the thermite byproducts came from actual thermite. Harrit found the thermite in the dust.

You have not studied the WTC dust, so your ignorant opinion means nothing. Face it, pal, you lose. You are soft on mass murder which is another reason to ignore you.

Dr. Harrit, Dr. Farrer, and Dr. Jones oppose mass murder. So do I.

:jaw-dropp
The best part of your delusions on 911, you can't prove any of them just like you can't prove you are Galileo your other delusion. You are delusion poster and you offer up zero supporting evidence for the dolt Jones who made up the thermite scenario 4 years after 911 and was peer reviewed fired by his University; They know he is nuts on 911, did you forget to use knowledge and evidence before posting dirt dumb ideas from a known liar?

The question is are you totally fact free on 911 issue because you are delusional and think you are Galileo, or did you try extra hard to post lies to appear to be totally ignorant of physics, chemistry, logic, and other areas?

As everyone sees you can't tell us how much thermite was found in the ruble of the WTC! You can't tell anyone how it was done. You can't even produce who did it. The fact is there is this liar named Jones he made up lies and you like to support them with nothing but talk saying he is right. Talk? How weak is your apologies for terrorist; simple talk and your massive personal delusion you are Galileo. I fear your word is worthless in defending Jones' lie and you will need a pile of evidence. Where is your evidence? Did you leave it back in your own times?

[twinstead]

You don't know what you are talking about. Nuts on the Internet make wild assertions all the time. I stick with sound science and experts.

You only stick with sound science and experts when it suits you, and you only call the junk that supports your world view "sound science" and the nuts on the internet who support that junk "experts" when it suits you.

Whenever experts and sound science conflict with your beliefs, well, we know what you do then.

Good luck with that.

[bill smith]

The best part of your delusions on 911, you can't prove any of them just like you can't prove you are Galileo your other delusion. You are delusion poster and you offer up zero supporting evidence for the dolt Jones who made up the thermite scenario 4 years after 911 and was peer reviewed fired by his University; They know he is nuts on 911, did you forget to use knowledge and evidence before posting dirt dumb ideas from a known liar?

The question is are you totally fact free on 911 issue because you are delusional and think you are Galileo, or did you try extra hard to post lies to appear to be totally ignorant of physics, chemistry, logic, and other areas?

Yes It really is true Beachnut. In a two year study Dr Jones and his eight-man research team of scientists discovered thermite in the TC dust. The presence of thermite is now proven beyond any doubt.

[Galileo]

You only stick with sound science and experts when it suits you, and you only call the junk that supports your world view "sound science" and the nuts on the internet who support that junk "experts" when it suits you.

Whenever experts and sound science conflict with your beliefs, well, we know what you do then.

Good luck with that.

I don't need any luck and what I think doesn't matter. What does matter is that PhD scientists found military grade nano-thermite in the WTC dust. They also found the byproducts of thermite reactions.

The thermite explains why the towers fell down, even thought they were designed to withstand fully loaded airplane crashes.

It explains why molten steel was found in the rubble.

It explains why molten steel was seen dripping from WTC 2.

It explains why some steel was partially evaporated.

It explains NASA images of thermal hotspots.

It explains why underground fires burned for three months after 9/11.

It explains why brave firemen rushed to the scene and up the buildings to save lives; because they didn't know thermite was planted in the building.

It explains why fire engineers allowed the firemen to go into the WTC; they didn't know about the thermite either.

It explains all this, and more.

Face the facts. Your defense of mass murder is disgusting. In fact, your support of mass murder makes it easier to understand how any human being could want to murder so many people. If you don't care about it, then why should Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld care.

[beachnut]

Yes It really is true Beachnut. In a two year study Dr Jones and his eight-man research team of scientists discovered thermite in the TC dust. The presence of thermite is now proven beyond any doubt.
Jone found iron rust, Al and other elements and you have no idea why he failed but he published his own rebuttal in the paper. Jones had to pay to publish. Real journal know he only makes up his conclusion on controlled demolition. Jones has a delusion on 911 based on his failed opinion and you support it with talk. You say Jones found thermite but have no clue what you are talking about! You can't even defend the paper. You offer zero defense of a paper; you only talk.

Show me a photo of steel with thermite products on it?
Show me a cut of the WTC by thermite. You can't!
Show me some iron left over from the tons of thermite you said were in the WTC. You can't because you are telling a lie based on the delusions of Jones. You can't do chemistry or physics so you do the only thing you can do to support Jones you post more lies.

[Galileo]

The best part of your delusions on 911, you can't prove any of them just like you can't prove you are Galileo your other delusion. You are delusion poster and you offer up zero supporting evidence for the dolt Jones who made up the thermite scenario 4 years after 911 and was peer reviewed fired by his University; They know he is nuts on 911, did you forget to use knowledge and evidence before posting dirt dumb ideas from a known liar?

The question is are you totally fact free on 911 issue because you are delusional and think you are Galileo, or did you try extra hard to post lies to appear to be totally ignorant of physics, chemistry, logic, and other areas?

As everyone sees you can't tell us how much thermite was found in the ruble of the WTC! You can't tell anyone how it was done. You can't even produce who did it. The fact is there is this liar named Jones he made up lies and you like to support them with nothing but talk saying he is right. Talk? How weak is your apologies for terrorist; simple talk and your massive personal delusion you are Galileo. I fear your word is worthless in defending Jones' lie and you will need a pile of evidence. Where is your evidence? Did you leave it back in your own times?

I ask the good people of the JREF forum to denounce this raving of a lunatic. Where's the outrage?

I first became a believer in 9/11 Truth because of the JREF forum. I came here to look for answers to questions posed by movies like Loose Change, and people like Dr. Kevin Barrett and Dr. David Ray Griffin.
Removed rule 12 violation.
Making an insulting pun on a member's name is considered a personal attack.

[TexasJack]

Face the facts. Your defense of mass murder is disgusting. In fact, your support of mass murder makes it easier to understand how any human being could want to murder so many people. If you don't care about it, then why should Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld care.

When do the trials of these mass murderers begin? I have neglected to read the papers lately. Can you tell me?

[MIKILLINI]

It's not my opinion. It is a finding by PhD scientists who examined the WTC dust. Your ignorant opinion means nothing.

And you would think scientific peers would be jumping all over this big news 8 years after 9/11. Why aren't they?

[Galileo]

Jone found iron rust, Al and other elements and you have no idea why he failed but he published his own rebuttal in the paper he had to pay to publish because all real journals can see he only makes it his conclusion on controlled demolition. Jones has a delusion on 911 based on his failed opinion and you support it with talk. You say Jones found thermite but have no clue what you are talking about! You can't even defend the paper. You offer zero defense of a paper; you only talk.

Show me a photo of steel with thermite products on it?
Show me a cut of the WTC by thermite. You can't!
Show me some iron left over from the tons of thermite you said were in the WTC. You can't because you are telling a lie based on the delusions of Jones. You can't do chemistry or physics so you do the only thing you can do to support Jones you post more lies.

You don't know what Dr. Jones found because you have never looked at the evidence first hand. Jones studied the evidence himself. His discoveries have been confirmed by other scientists.

Seek help.

Your blatant ignorance and bias actually benefits the 9/11 Truth movement. That is the one thing I thank you for.

[Galileo]

When do the trials of these mass murderers begin? I have neglected to read the papers lately. Can you tell me?

They begin when the FBI does an investigation into who put the thermite into the WTC. It does not look like it will happen under Obama, so we may have to wait until after the next election.

Since many foreigners were also murdered on 9/11, the case could begin with an investigation by law enforcement in another country.

[Grizzly Bear]

It explains why molten steel was found in the rubble.

It explains why molten steel was seen dripping from WTC 2.

It explains why some steel was [corroded]partially evaporated.

It explains NASA images of thermal hotspots. [thermite does not sustain reactions for several days, weeks, or months]

It explains why underground fires burned for three months after 9/11. [This is actually proof against it]

It explains why brave firemen rushed to the scene and up the buildings to save lives; because they didn't know thermite was planted in the building.

[A couple of skyscrapers fell with people still inside them. And thermite is supposed be the justification to rescue people according to you? That's disrespectful and dumb]

It explains why fire engineers allowed the firemen to go into the WTC; they didn't know about the thermite either.


[Same as previous]


[everything in brackets and strikes are my edits]

Not bothering with the emotional appeal...

[TexasJack]

They begin when the FBI does an investigation into who put the thermite into the WTC. It does not look like it will happen under Obama, so we may have to wait until after the next election.

Since many foreigners were also murdered on 9/11, the case could begin with an investigation by law enforcement in another country.

Oh so anywhere from 3 to infinite years, that sounds so promising. You would think with this super duper thermite evidence they could move it along a little quicker, correct?

[Galileo]

And you would think scientific peers would be jumping all over this big news 8 years after 9/11. Why aren't they?

Many scientists are jumping on the big news. Dr. Harrit has been flooded with positive responses from scientists all over the world, and more research papers are planned for publication.

We are at the beginning, not the end. Science papers like Harrit's are eternal.

Copernicus got little response for 67 years after he published his famous paper.

Thanks to the Internet, things are moving more quickly than in the 16th century.

[beachnut]

You don't know what Dr. Jones found because you have never looked at the evidence first hand. Jones studied the evidence himself. His discoveries have been confirmed by other scientists.

Seek help.

Your blatant ignorance and bias actually benefits the 9/11 Truth movement. That is the one thing I thank you for. Stop being so autobiographical in your posting. I could save time and just send you your own posts as you support the nut case ideas of Jones who has no evidence placing thermite in the WTC on 911. And the best you can do, your massive a-game, is your own opinion based on Jones' word and some other failed scientist who also love conspiracy theories like you do.


No other scientists see he is raving nut case on 911 issues. You think you are Galileo and it is easy for you to fall for delusions you are living in a deluison.

Proof of thermite please.
Post a photo of thermite product on the WTC steel.
Post a photo of thermite cut steel at the WTC.
The steel was studied and part were saved that showed damage. No thermite.

oops you support a liar with talk; wow, not up to any real standards of science you use your moronic opinion to support a delusional Jones on his made up thermite scenario; how perfect for someone claiming to be Galileo.

[Galileo]

Post removed for incivility.

[Galileo]

Oh so anywhere from 3 to infinite years, that sounds so promising. You would think with this super duper thermite evidence they could move it along a little quicker, correct?

If Obama does not push for the investigation, it won't happen in the United States.

[Galileo]

Stop being so autobiographical in your posting. I could save time and just send you your own posts as you support the nut case ideas of Jones who has no evidence placing thermite in the WTC on 911. And the best you can do, your massive a-game, is your own opinion based on Jones' word and some other failed scientist who also love conspiracy theories like you do.


No other scientists see he is raving nut case on 911 issues. You think you are Galileo and it is easy for you to fall for delusions you are living in a deluison.

Proof of thermite please.
Post a photo of thermite product on the WTC steel.
Post a photo of thermite cut steel at the WTC.
The steel was studied and part were saved that showed damage. No thermite.

oops you support a liar with talk; wow, not up to any real standards of science you use your moronic opinion to support a delusional Jones on his made up thermite scenario; how perfect for someone claiming to be Galileo.

yawn.

[TexasJack]

If Obama does not push for the investigation, it won't happen in the United States.

So what's your best estimate if this happening elsewhere, with all this super duper thermite evidence, within a decade? (or even a century is ok)

[beachnut]

:shocked::k:
... I AM GALILEO. ...
His best evidence is... Nothing but trash talk to support his anti-intellectual hero, Jones.
You don't know what Dr. Jones found because you have never looked at the evidence first hand. Jones studied the evidence himself. His discoveries have been confirmed by other scientists.

Seek help.
:shocked::k:

Your blatant ignorance and bias actually benefits the 9/11 Truth movement. That is the one thing I thank you for. What was your degree in again; posting lies and supporting them with your moronic opinions does little to expose your knowledge on 911. You have no knowledge on 911 and your support of Jones is proof.
From Galileo I expect more.

The only thing you presented as support for Jones is Jones own junk in the form of your opinion. You offer zero calculations showing thermite was needed. You show zero evident thermite was found on or damaged any steel on 911. You offer zero and claim victory and will soon give your standard delusional talk on how you are the original Galileo who now is void of logic and reason; a failure on 911 due to lack of evidence and rational thinking as you support a known liar, the super-nano-thermite failed physicist Jones.


yawn.
Your best support for Jones!