Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

[Senenmut]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

so the question is, will the end result of thermate acting on steel look the same under an electron microscope as the fema bpat report appendix C sample 1?

[T.A.M.]

No the question is whether to believe a single word that *********** snake oil salesmen utters.

TAM

[beachnut]

... came upon this post by prof jones:

...?
Prof Jones is insane.

One small sample of steel suffered corrosion. Wow, 8 years of constant delusions and repeated nonsense by Prof Thermite Jones; fired for being stupid on 911.

[Dave Rogers]

No the question is whether to believe a single word that *********** snake oil salesmen utters.

Agreed. There is no reason to believe Jones's unsupported word. If he's really done this experiment, why hasn't he published the results in the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Let's face it, they're hardly going to reject the paper; they'd publish his laundry list if he claimed it proved 9/11 was an inside job.

Dave

[ImANiceGuy]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking sh*t and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

[Dave Rogers]

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking sh*t and none of what he is saying is true...

We've got his unsupported word that he performed an experiment that he hasn't bothered to publish even on his own website, against peer-reviewed published work by at least three authors. The burden of proof lies on Jones, and he's done nothing to take it up.

Dave

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, NiceGuy, it's hard for us to comment on Jones's thinking when he keeps flip-flopping between one theory and another like a bloody metronome.

Jones started with an initial theory that something resembling conventional explosives rbought down the towers. When the problems that theory created became insurmountable, he made up magic thermite. A substance which conveniently couldn't be tested for against the background of the materials of the building itself. And then the problems with the thermite theory became insurmountable so he tried to meld the two claiming that the thermite was part of an exotic fusing system for conventional explosives. All this did, however was reintroduce all the original problems that initially pushed him towards magic thermite.

And now he's talking about the effects of the thermite on the steel again. Why does this matter if that was just the fuse on the bombs? Shouldn't he be searching for conventional blast damage?

Jones is continually bouncing back and forth between two scientifically untenable theories, meticulously avoiding one theory that does explain all of the phenomena observed on 9/11:

Airplanes and fire did it.

Jones wants 9/11 to have been an inside job. He needs 9/11 to have been an inside job. Because to admit to the other possibility means admitting to the world and himself that he destroyed his career and reputation for nothing.

It's so sad, that writing this post, putting it out in words on the screen... I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard for the first time ever.

[ImANiceGuy]

sorry sorry sorry.....I come off too strongly in my op.

I meant more to draw attention to the fact that most debunkers would choose the "no-plane" thread over this, far more interesting thread, regarding an unusual find at WTC7.

I'm in a diffferent thread with it though, peace.

[T.A.M.]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking sh*t and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

yes, and imagine, NIST and others who were in on the big NWO plot DIDN'T TAKE IT AND HIDE IT. No, they let it be full examined and the results published for public and investigoogler consumption. Boy that was a big slip up in the plan, don't you think? Now with Stevie Jones and his crack truther team, they have uncovered the whole damn plot...doh!!!!

TAM;)

[ElMondoHummus]

Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

How is that possible? Thermate reacts at far too high a temperature to leave behind a eutectic formation; it would've rendered the steel itself molten, not merely created iron oxide/iron sulfide species encapsulating unmolten iron. Has Jones not read Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's work?

[ImANiceGuy]

elmondohummus - When you say "thermite reacts at too high a temperature to leave a eutectic formation", could you please briefly elaborate for the laypeople.

I read the author's analysis you mentioned previously....is there more than this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

From Wikipedia.org; Eutectic system:

The resulting solid macrostructure from a eutectic reaction depends on a few factors. The most important factor is how the two solid solutions nucleate and grow. The most common structure is a lamellar structure, but other possible structures include rodlike, globular, and acicular.[4]

This would relate to your reply, right? Can you explain how it fits in?

[Senenmut]

How is that possible? Thermate reacts at far too high a temperature to leave behind a eutectic formation;

and what happens when that thermate reaction cools?

it would've rendered the steel itself molten, not merely created iron oxide/iron sulfide species encapsulating unmolten iron. Has Jones not read Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's work?

what happens when molten steel cools. you know, the phases the steel goes through.......

encapsulating unmolten iron?? im not sure i understand you there.

[The Almond]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile.

This is cute. Jones completely glosses over the extremely well understood phenomenon of heat decomposition of gypsum. At high temperatures (those well achievable in a building fire), gypsum wallboard will go from gypsum, to anhydrite and finally to CaO and SOx. The sulfates/ites are extremely corrosive to steel and a variety of other materials.

However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

But first, we would need proof that thermate was present before the fire started. Why does Jones not understand this?

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it!

And how much did it raise the temperature of the steel, Jones? How many experiments will it take to prove that thermite does nothing to steel?

Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.)

Sulfates are the primary culprit in atmospheric corrosion of steel. Yes, having nitrates and sulfates in the atmosphere, in addition to causing acid rain, will also degrade steel over time. Gypsum decomposes to release sulfates in the presence of fire. Interested parties should read:
"The atmospheric corrosion of unprotected carbon steel"
in Materials and Corrosion, Vol 32, Issue 6

We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

This is so sad. Jones's willful ignorance is pitiful.


It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

It's not surprising. Both groups are equally insane, but Jones deals in esoterics. He dresses up his conclusions with enough pseudo-science to fool the average truther, and even most debunkers don't have the requisite education to point out his errors. I guess, the no-planers provide crazy that's accessible for everyone, while Jones requires some special knowledge of materials science.

[Macgyver1968]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking sh*t and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

Umm...the thread was only 4 hours old when you posted this....and started at 10:15pm EST. The other threads are days or weeks old. What exactly were you expecting?

[Edx]

Also that thread has basically turned into making fun of how stupid he is.

[TruthersLie]

so i was browsing 911blogger and came upon this post by prof jones:


"Next we return to the mysterious melted steel from WTC7. Now however, the filmmakers inform us that their is nothing special about it: "it was attacked by a liquid slag... a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen." The hypothesis is that the sulfur in the gypsum board was responsible as the fire burned in the rubble pile. However, the description of this slag seems to match thermate by products almost to a T: Molten iron, sulfur, and oxygen. Therefore, I believe more study is necessary to determine the cause. Until an experiment is performed to compare the effects of each cause, this remains an open question.

I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject.

Meanwhile, for BBC to neglect our experimental replication of the observed corrosion, using thermite + sulfur, is rather remarkable in itself, seeing that they filmed one of our experiments, as I distinctly recall."

so the question is, will the end result of thermate acting on steel look the same under an electron microscope as the fema bpat report appendix C sample 1?

I'm sorry.

My question is after all of the bullcrap from steven jones, why would you believe ANYTHING he says?

First it is thermite. But has no evidence
then high sulphur concentrations... it must be thermate. And can't forget the iron microspheres in the dust.
then it is nanothermite.
Then it is conventional CD with nanothermite triggers

and now we are back to thermate.

Can't he just choose a theory, do the science to see if he can PROVE IT, get it published in ANY peer reviewed engineering/physics journal and then move on?

Instead we get him performing craptacular science (the bentham "paper" is an excellent example with its 20 major methodological errors) and instead of fixing the testing issues and demonstrating that it is legitimate and accurate he jumps to another different theory.

Hey STEVEN. Stay on task. Finish up ONE theory, before you jump bandwagons to another.

[Macgyver1968]

I'm sorry.

First it is thermite. But has no evidence
then high sulphur concentrations... it must be thermate. And can't forget the iron microspheres in the dust.
then it is nanothermite.
Then it is conventional CD with nanothermite triggers

and now we are back to thermate.



Thermite...thermate...nanothermite.....and yet, no one has been able to show how any of them could be used to cut a piece of structural steel...in any amount of time...much less in the fractions of seconds required in a CD.

[Senenmut]

Quote:
Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel.

Yes, having nitrates and sulfates in the atmosphere, in addition to causing acid rain, will also degrade steel over time. Gypsum decomposes to release sulfates in the presence of fire. Interested parties should read:
"The atmospheric corrosion of unprotected carbon steel"
in Materials and Corrosion, Vol 32, Issue 6


so are ya saying that thermate reacting on steel can have the same corrosion effects seen on the fema bpat sample 1?

[twinstead]

Thermite...thermate...nanothermite.....and yet, no one has been able to show how any of them could be used to cut a piece of structural steel...in any amount of time...much less in the fractions of seconds required in a CD.

Yea, if somebody--ANYBODY--could actually demonstrate that any thermitic material could cut vertical beams of structural steel in an instant, it would go a long way towards changing my thinking that anybody who believes such things are morons.

just saying.

[newton3376]

Instead we get him performing craptacular science (the bentham "paper" is an excellent example with its 20 major methodological errors) and instead of fixing the testing issues and demonstrating that it is legitimate and accurate he jumps to another different theory.

Has anyone given a concise list of all 20 with a short description?

If you know all 20 could you list them? It would be nice to have all 20 listed instead of having to wade through those long threads to find all 20....I remember a few (like testing in open air instead of an inert environment, not providing a valid paint sample, etc)....

[ImANiceGuy]

It's not surprising. Both groups are equally insane, but Jones deals in esoterics. He dresses up his conclusions with enough pseudo-science to fool the average truther, and even most debunkers don't have the requisite education to point out his errors. I guess, the no-planers provide crazy that's accessible for everyone, while Jones requires some special knowledge of materials science.

very well said; this is what I was trying to say (minus the both sides being insane bit, I think just the no-planers qualify as literally insane)

[funk de fino]

It's utterly amazing how few replies this thread has produced, yet the "no planer", Calling All Boxcutters, thread is overflowing with replies.

Professor Jones; the insane snake-oil salesman. I'm sure he's just talking sh*t and none of what he is saying is true...

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

He is a lying piece of crap. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the Towers. They were both examined. As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators and some pieces put aside for further study, it seems these were the only two pieces with these characteristics. Unless you have evidence otherwise.

[T.A.M.]

He is a lying piece of crap. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the Towers. They were both examined. As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators and some pieces put aside for further study, it seems these were the only two pieces with these characteristics. Unless you have evidence otherwise.

like I said...this amazing "new" evidence, in all the 9 years since 9/11, has been sitting there after full analysis by scientists (and no evidence of thermite found, mentioned, discovered, etc...) for the public at large to look at and see.

HOW *********** STUPID ARE OUR 9/11 NWO PLOTTERS TO LEAVE SUCH CRITICAL, DAMNING EVIDENCE AROUND LIKE THAT?????

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

He is a lying piece of crap. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the Towers. They were both examined. As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators and some pieces put aside for further study, it seems these were the only two pieces with these characteristics. Unless you have evidence otherwise.

If every piece of steel was examined by forensic investigators, are you suggesting that they couldn't identify the difference between steel from the towers and those from bldg 7?

[funk de fino]

If every piece of steel was examined by forensic investigators, are you suggesting that they couldn't identify the difference between steel from the towers and those from bldg 7?

No, read again.

[RedIbis]

No, read again.

I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

[T.A.M.]

obviously EVERY piece of steel wasn't examined by anyone...that is silly.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

obviously EVERY piece of steel wasn't examined by anyone...that is silly.

TAM:)

Ok. Most of it?

[Senenmut]

Ok. Most of it?

from the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairlure modes pdf:

"NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot give a picture of tempertures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns."

[fourtoe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think when Funk says forensic investigators he is referring to the investigators who examined it at Fresh Kills, not the investigators of NIST.


When I saw this thread I thought that someone bumped a really old thread and thought, "doesn't this guy know that it is NANOthermite...." But instead Jones is going back to it being thermate?

There is a radio debate with like 5 of the top Truthers vs just one guy, John Brown. One of those Truthers was Jones and he kept on getting on John Brown for talking about thermite instead of nanothermite...why is it no longer nanothermite?

[Sam.I.Am]

IIRC it was explosives then hush a boom explosives, then thermite, then thermate, then nano-thermite, then back to explosives only the fuses were nano-thermite and now they're back to thermite again?

[Senenmut]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think when Funk says forensic investigators he is referring to the investigators who examined it at Fresh Kills, not the investigators of NIST.
its not like those people had microscopes and lab equipment to test it like nist and fema did...

When I saw this thread I thought that someone bumped a really old thread and thought, "doesn't this guy know that it is NANOthermite...." But instead Jones is going back to it being thermate?
if i remember right, i think prof jones thinks the nanothermite was a trigger. whats interesting is thermate having the same characteristic corrosion as found by barnett et al.

There is a radio debate with like 5 of the top Truthers vs just one guy, John Brown. One of those Truthers was Jones and he kept on getting on John Brown for talking about thermite instead of nanothermite...why is it no longer nanothermite?
havent you read the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe? its been discused here a million times. i also remember reading about more experiments they are doing so maybe they can clear up a few issues.

[beachnut]

...
havent you read the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe? its been discused here a million times. i also remember reading about more experiments they are doing so maybe they can clear up a few issues.
The paper is a fraud. No thermite was found; the test they did proved it was not thermite you failed to comprehend the paper and understand it was a fraud to fool people like you.

[fourtoe]

its not like those people had microscopes and lab equipment to test it like nist and fema did...

Is this for sure? I never heard about the extent of that forensic investigation so I simply just don't know. I do know that they had a crapload of bomb-sniffing dogs (who are trained to find in incendiaries) going all up on that WTC steel.


if i remember right, i think prof jones thinks the nanothermite was a trigger. whats interesting is thermate having the same characteristic corrosion as found by barnett et al.
So nanothermite is not being replaced by thermate? Both are being used is what he is leaning to now?


havent you read the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe? its been discused here a million times. i also remember reading about more experiments they are doing so maybe they can clear up a few issues.
Parts of it, a while back. I agree that I should give it a good look over...

[BigAl]

its not like those people had microscopes and lab equipment to test it like nist and fema did...


You don't need a microscope to see the effects of man-made explosives and therm-anything.

[T.A.M.]

Ok. Most of it?

I am not sure. For starters, who were the "Forensic" investigators. I mean there were a lot of people down there looking into things. Were the FEMA people with forensics, or were these the FBI people.

Once that is determined, then what is the source we are using to determine HOW MUCH steel they examined. Then we need to define what is meant by examined. Do we mean the metal was looked at, and based on gross inspection notes were made, or was all the steel that was inspected analyzed in other ways.

See all these questions are important to your discussion, but short of finding out who the "Forensic Investigators" were, and either (A) asking them, or (B) having access to all of their notes and data, you will not know.

TAM:)

[ImANiceGuy]

How is that possible? Thermate reacts at far too high a temperature to leave behind a eutectic formation; it would've rendered the steel itself molten, not merely created iron oxide/iron sulfide species encapsulating unmolten iron. Has Jones not read Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett's work?

Elmondo, could you please elaborate upon this point in laymans terms. Please see post #11 for my original follow-up questions...Thanks!

[Edx]

So nanothermite is not being replaced by thermate? Both are being used is what he is leaning to now?

I heard that too.

He has also gone back and forth between saying nano thermite was painted onto the steel which he claims becomes a "high explosive' when it dries (explosive paint literally) and saying it was matches/fuses for traditional explosives.

I cant remember how he claimed thermate was used, but presumably if he is now claiming thermate was painted on as well I guess? Who knows.

[grandmastershek]

frigging Jones. I guess he chose to ignore the part of the FEMA analysis were it gave the temps the sample was exposed to; which were far below thermite, thermate, superduperthermite, whatyoutalkingboutwillismite.

[ImANiceGuy]

frigging Jones. I guess he chose to ignore the part of the FEMA analysis were it gave the temps the sample was exposed to; which were far below thermite, thermate, superduperthermite, whatyoutalkingboutwillismite.

Too soon....too soon....

[Reactor drone]

If Jones can show a thermate reaction that produces steel samples that look like the ones in the FEMA report I'll gladly have a look at them. For now I'm not seeing anything other than an assertion that he's done testing that shows the same characteristics.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

That steel had visually different characteristics to most of the recovered steel, that's why it was put to one side for examination. You don't need to go over piece of steel with a microscope to see this stuff.

[T.A.M.]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM:)

[grandmastershek]

Too soon....too soon....

for what? a criticism based on reality?

[ElMondoHummus]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM:)

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

[funk de fino]

I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

[funk de fino]

from the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairlure modes pdf:

"NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot give a picture of tempertures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns."


The steel was inspected prior to NIST getting it.

[funk de fino]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think when Funk says forensic investigators he is referring to the investigators who examined it at Fresh Kills, not the investigators of NIST.


Exactly. the ones that no-one in the 911 TM movement have ever treid contacting. The ones that Red Ibis knows about having been shown tis many times. Those were the guys who pulled out some of these special samples for inspection at a later date. Somone said there was only one sample like this when there were two. It seems it has short circuited Red Ibis capacity to think.

[The Almond]

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

[T.A.M.]

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

Normally i would be the same way, but this extraordinary evidence he says he has, he has been sitting on for years...really?

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

What I'd like to know is how the same sort of grain boundaries would've appeared after a fast heating and cooling that would happen with a thermite (or thermate) redox. Biederman and Sisson's work (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/) indicated that the sulfidation attack actually took place on the order of hours, and at lower temperatures than what would've been experienced in a thermate reaction (they indicate a max of "... maybe up to 1100oC", endquote). I mean, yes, I know his competence and credibility in the necessary areas of knowledge is suspect, but still... the details of the comparison to Biederman's and Sisson's findings is the exact sort of issue that must be addressed, given that he himself invoked their work.

On the other hand, we don't really need him to publish anything to give us an excuse to reel off posts about his incompetence. :D

[RedIbis]

Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

Apparently, you're too dumb to realize that it does.

The fact that you don't think that it does is one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum. And that's really saying something.

[funk de fino]

Apparently, you're too dumb to realize that it does.

The fact that you don't think that it does is one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum. And that's really saying something.


The fact you have failed to see what my reply was in reference to is even more stupid.

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

No, it was not the only piece like this. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the towers. What dont you get about that that you had to ask me a banal question.

[RedIbis]

The fact you have failed to see what my reply was in reference to is even more stupid.




So although you quoted my post, I was supposed to know that you were actually referring to someone else's post. Ok, that explains it. Next time I'll try to employ my psychic abilities, suspend what is the normal conventions of dialogue and try to be as smart as you.

[Senenmut]

You don't need a microscope to see the effects of man-made explosives and therm-anything.

true- remember sisson could only get "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs with his hypothesis. he is being a gatekeeper with the exact amount. ive emailed the library to get his graduate students thesis but apparently she didnt graduate so they dont have it. i emailed prof sisson who also said the same about the student and he never gave me the exact amount of dissolved steel over the 24 hr period.

here is some good pieces that were seen but apparently recycled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

he saw this just alittle over a week after the attack.


another one-
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
"Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin", Astaneh said.

notice he is talking about more than one. he saw this between sept 19-29th.

and again-
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

[Senenmut]

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

[Dave Rogers]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

Why would a peer-reviewed journal be interested in publishing a paper that's nothing but a refutation of a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed? Publishing something like that would be the beginning of the slippery slope towards publishing papers refuting the ramblings of the delusional schizophrenic junkies at the local homeless shelter. Harrit et al has no intellectual respectability, and until it's passed a proper peer review process (hint: such a thing would not normally cause the managing editor of the jurnal to resign in protest) then it doesn't warrant a reply.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

It sits comfortably next to my SnooterSkootle in the "Land of unnecessary inventions".

First provide us with a LEGITIMATE PAPER that has been LEGITIMATELY peer reviewed, and then we'll talk. Good luck, Please Try Again.

TAM:)

[Scott Sommers]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

This is a very good point. It's the same one I keep asking those so-called skeptics about UFOs. Where is there peer-reviewed article that debunks Bob Lazar's anti-gravity device? Where is there peer-review that debunks time travel? Where is there peer-review that debunks creationism. And in this day where anyone can say something stupid and expect it to be taken serious, where is your peer-review that debunks flat Earth? Come on JREF. Get it together. The main purpose of science should be to take seriously every stupid claim that gets said by retards of every sort.

[kookbreaker]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

Its printed in the Journal of **** We Haven't Found Yet 'Cause it Doesn't Exist Vol XII Issue 4

[Senenmut]

Why would a peer-reviewed journal be interested in publishing a paper that's nothing but a refutation of a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed? Publishing something like that would be the beginning of the slippery slope towards publishing papers refuting the ramblings of the delusional schizophrenic junkies at the local homeless shelter. Harrit et al has no intellectual respectability, and until it's passed a proper peer review process (hint: such a thing would not normally cause the managing editor of the jurnal to resign in protest) then it doesn't warrant a reply.

Dave

so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

[Senenmut]

This is a very good point. It's the same one I keep asking those so-called skeptics about UFOs. Where is there peer-reviewed article that debunks Bob Lazar's anti-gravity device? Where is there peer-review that debunks time travel? Where is there peer-review that debunks creationism. And in this day where anyone can say something stupid and expect it to be taken serious, where is your peer-review that debunks flat Earth? Come on JREF. Get it together. The main purpose of science should be to take seriously every stupid claim that gets said by retards of every sort.

again-
so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

[twinstead]

again-
so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

No, what he is saying it is prof jones's responsibility to show those paint chips are what he claims they are, not ours to prove they aren't.

[Scott Sommers]

again-
so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

I'm confused about you mean. Do you mean that Dr. Steve found a paint chip? Of course he did.

Let me put it another way, I am not an expert in this area, but then neither are you. And ironically, I have read the CV of Steven Jones, and neither is he. So here we have a bunch of non-experts arguing about the dust from building collapses during the 911 attacks. What's more is that some of them say they have an expert opinion when clearly they don't.

Truther Senenmut, you may think this claim of thermite is more reasonable than say, nuclear weapons or space-based ray guns, but it's not. There's a whole thermite research community in the USA and not one of them, not even one of them, has said even one focking word on this. Sure, they're shape-shifting reptiles, too. Isn't that what're going to say? And what's more is that for 8 years, you and your Truther buddies seem to have missed this point. Why aren't you and your CIT buddies out picketing conferences for energetic material research,
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2010&program=energetic
where presumably the scientists who made this magic thermite must be. Or was it made in an underwater city where the UFOs land?

You know why? 'Cause you guys don't even know what I'm talking about. And if you'd know what I'm talking about, why should anybody here or anywhere else take you seriously. You know why? Because they don't.

Get a brain. Or better yet, get a degree. That way, you might be able to say something about this that doesn't get laughed at.

[Senenmut]

No, what he is saying it is prof jones's responsibility to show those paint chips are what he claims they are, not ours to prove they aren't.

there are plenty of paints out there that produce iron microspheres when heat to 430c....just pick one!!

[Senenmut]

I'm confused about you mean. Do you mean that Dr. Steve found a paint chip? Of course he did.

Let me put it another way, I am not an expert in this area, but then neither are you. And ironically, I have read the CV of Steven Jones, and neither is he. So here we have a bunch of non-experts arguing about the dust from building collapses during the 911 attacks. What's more is that some of them say they have an expert opinion when clearly they don't.

Truther Senenmut, you may think this claim of thermite is more reasonable than say, nuclear weapons or space-based ray guns, but it's not. There's a whole thermite research community in the USA and not one of them, not even one of them, has said even one focking word on this. Sure, they're shape-shifting reptiles, too. Isn't that what're going to say? And what's more is that for 8 years, you and your Truther buddies seem to have missed this point. Why aren't you and your CIT buddies out picketing conferences for energetic material research,
http://www.grc.org/programs.aspx?year=2010&program=energetic
where presumably the scientists who made this magic thermite must be. Or was it made in an underwater city where the UFOs land?

You know why? 'Cause you guys don't even know what I'm talking about. And if you'd know what I'm talking about, why should anybody here or anywhere else take you seriously. You know why? Because they don't.

Get a brain. Or better yet, get a degree. That way, you might be able to say something about this that doesn't get laughed at.

but your forgetting something skeptic scott in taiwan...thermate + steel shows the same charactistic corrosion as found by Barnett et al!

[Macgyver1968]

there are plenty of paints out there that produce iron microspheres when heat to 430c....just pick one!!

There are plenty of ways to apply painted on nanothermite to a vertical column in order to cut through it...just pick one!!!

To the best of my knowledge, Jones has never said how the nanothermite was used to bring down the towers...he's just sure it WAS used.

[carlitos]

No, now we're back to thermAte. Stay with us, Macgyver! This whole subforum is doing a retro 2006 weekend. Next up, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera...

[Scott Sommers]

but your forgetting something skeptic scott in taiwan...thermate + steel shows the same charactistic corrosion as found by Barnett et al!

What...and all the thermite experts in the world have missed this. You have no idea if it does. This is made up science. Honestly, do you really think if all this crap is true that the only place in the world you'd be talking about this is the JREF? Why don't you and Truther Barnett try some of those energetic materials conferences? Oh I forgot...they're all shape-shifting reptiles.

Honestly, if you guys can go to one of a genuine energetic materials conference and present a paper on this thermate discovery, I will bow down and worship you. Let me try this one. Send me an abstract. Get Truther Barnett to send me an abstract. I'll send it in and I'll post whatever they send me back. Come on dude, take my dare. Show me what a fool I am.

I will write a public apology and become a Truther like you.

[Dave Rogers]

so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

No, you're completely wrong, and anyone reading my post could see I was saying nothing of the sort. Why do conspiracy theorists persist on seeing things that aren't there? Harrit et al have not provided reasonable evidence of the presence of thermite in the towers, since they have done so there is nothing to refute, and so I'm saying that no serious journal would feel a refutation worth bothering to print. Try reading the post a second time; you may find the absence of the word "paint" a bit of a giveaway.

but your forgetting something skeptic scott in taiwan...thermate + steel shows the same charactistic corrosion as found by Barnett et al!

So says Steven Jones. I think he's probably lying; at best, he's offered no evidence whatsoever beyond his bare assertion. Again, that's not worth taking seriously.

Dave

[Macgyver1968]

No, now we're back to thermAte. Stay with us, Macgyver! This whole subforum is doing a retro 2006 weekend. Next up, Justin Timberlake and Christina Aguilera...

Dangit!....I guess "tribal" tattoos are cool again.

Let me re-phrase:

There are plenty of ways to apply thermate to a vertical column in order to cut through it...just pick one!!!

To the best of my knowledge, Jones has never said how the thermate was used to bring down the towers...he's just sure it WAS used.


There...now are you happy?

but wait Mac...that didn't change a damn thing!

[T.A.M.]

again-
so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?

No one to date, including many reputable independent scientists have found any thermite in their samples of WTC dust. Many of them have found paint chips. Given they were smart enough to realize they are just paint chips, I doubt they tested them to see if they were secret nanothermite.

The bigger question is, has anyone else who has access to Jones chips, found similar chips to the ones Jones claims are thermite, and if they had, were they able to reproduce his findings.

henri-co (a user on this forum) claims that what chips he found in the samples Jones sent him (this is the closest Jones would get to having anyone else analyze his samples....a fellow truther) would not reproduce the findings of Jones...henri's answer....they must have been planted in their by someone who accessed his mail (secretly).

TAM:)

[Senenmut]

No, you're completely wrong, and anyone reading my post could see I was saying nothing of the sort. Why do conspiracy theorists persist on seeing things that aren't there? Harrit et al have not provided reasonable evidence of the presence of thermite in the towers, since they have done so there is nothing to refute, and so I'm saying that no serious journal would feel a refutation worth bothering to print. Try reading the post a second time; you may find the absence of the word "paint" a bit of a giveaway.
so your saying there is plenty of paint out there that produce iron microspheres when heated to 430?



So says Steven Jones. I think he's probably lying; at best, he's offered no evidence whatsoever beyond his bare assertion. Again, that's not worth taking seriously

Dave

why do you think it would NOT produce the same results?

[twinstead]

is there a term for somebody who answers questions with other questions instead of actually addressing the issues?

[Dave Rogers]

so your saying there is plenty of paint out there that produce iron microspheres when heated to 430?

You seem to be reading a completely different set of words to the ones I've posted. Please stop it.

why do you think it would NOT produce the same results?

I really cannot figure out what that question is supposed to refer to; it's clearly not related in any way whatsoever to anything I wrote. If you want a discussion, could you at least try to be coherent?

Dave

[Senenmut]

Dangit!....I guess "tribal" tattoos are cool again.

Let me re-phrase:

There are plenty of ways to apply thermate to a vertical column in order to cut through it...just pick one!!!

To the best of my knowledge, Jones has never said how the thermate was used to bring down the towers...he's just sure it WAS used.


There...now are you happy?

but wait Mac...that didn't change a damn thing!

could have been to destory a connection....or could have been just to weaken it in a particular area....... or depending on which direction one would want the steel to bend, just apply it to one side.
take for instance:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

[Scott Sommers]

could have been to destory a connection....or could have been just to weaken it in a particular area....... or depending on which direction one would want the steel to bend, just apply it to one side.
take for instance:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

Who knows what 'it' could do? Since no one is even sure that 'it' exists. That's why I dare you and your team of Truther scientists, join me in submitting an abstract to any of numerous upcoming conferences on energetic materials.

Let's make sure this message gets past a few trouble makers on the JREF out to the people who can really make a difference. Let's make this real science - you and me together. Just think what this could mean for the cause of liberty!

[Senenmut]

You seem to be reading a completely different set of words to the ones I've posted. Please stop it.



I really cannot figure out what that question is supposed to refer to; it's clearly not related in any way whatsoever to anything I wrote. If you want a discussion, could you at least try to be coherent?

Dave

I am asking you why thermate would NOT have the same corrosion characteristics as the piece described by barnett et al.

[Scott Sommers]

I am asking you why thermate would NOT have the same corrosion characteristics as the piece described by barnett et al.

Is this a real question? You gotta be joking? Right? The point of my conference challenge is that no one believes Jones. And I mean no one. There is no thermite expert on Earth who believes him. And he is no expert on thermite, either. That's why I keep saying you have to go a conference and demonstrate this in front of experts on energetic materials. They will tell you - and the rest the world if it's real or not. Then I will bow down and worship you Truth swine. Until then. I will call you liars and pigs.

But I bet a million dollars you give me some answer that shows you didn't even understand my point.

[BigAl]

I am asking you why thermate would NOT have the same corrosion characteristics as the piece described by barnett et al.

Because the chemical and physical processes bear no relationship to each other.

[The Almond]

so your saying there is plenty of paint out there that produce iron microspheres when heated to 430?


Jones didn't prove that his sample did, either. He showed secondary electron images of one sample, then burned a completely different sample and showed the results. Epic failure.

To answer your other asinine questions, the paint in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to all of the major structural members in the twin towers. The organic binder used in the coating combusts at approximately 400 C, and the pigment used iron oxide as a colorant. This is probably the 10th time I've had to repeat this.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever taken sunflower seeds, dipped them in 18 M acetic acid, then coated them in silver paint, then put them in an oven at 1000 C, and analyzed the ash? Why not?

Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. The reason is, the above described process won't tell you anything about the sunflower seeds. Their reaction to acetic acid is trivial, what they look like when they're silver is meaningless, the ash product contains very little of the original structure and is equally meaningless. If you want to prove it's a sunflower seed, you can do a DNA test. If you want to determine the viability of the seed, you can plant it.

Where am I going with this? No one has ever shown that you can determine if a material is "thermitic" by separating it out with a magnet from an amalgamated dust sample, soaking it in MEK and then setting it on fire. Jones is using a meaningless process, pointing to the ash and saying, "See? Because you can't reproduce it using Home Depot brand latex paint, the material must be thermite!!!" More to the point, if Jones wants to prove that his material is thermite, he has to do the appropriate tests to eliminate the contender materials. To date, he's done nothing that warrants anything other than ridicule.

[carlitos]

tfk had a lab that was ready to definitively test any and all chips for thermite. Cost was ~$150, as I recall. Surely Jones and Haritt have that kind of scratch?

[Senenmut]

Because the chemical and physical processes bear no relationship to each other.

your going to have to do alittle bit better than that!!!

[Dave Rogers]

I am asking you why thermate would NOT have the same corrosion characteristics as the piece described by barnett et al.

Because it would melt the steel rather than dissolving it. The result would be rounding rather than sharpening of edges. That's my best estimate until someone does the experiment and publishes the results. Anecdotes don't cut it.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

your going to have to do alittle bit better than that!!!

No, he's not. Jones is, because virtually nobody takes him seriously.

Dave

[twinstead]

Yes, senenmut, you are debating the wrong people. You should be pressuring Jones to do what he needs to do to convince real scientists and law enforcement that he has found evidence of foul play at the WTC.

[funk de fino]

So although you quoted my post, I was supposed to know that you were actually referring to someone else's post. Ok, that explains it. Next time I'll try to employ my psychic abilities, suspend what is the normal conventions of dialogue and try to be as smart as you.

Post # 22 smart guy. I replied to that. This was what the post was in relation to. You quoted me first.

It does not get any more simple. Jeez, what a fail.

[Macgyver1968]

could have been to destory a connection....or could have been just to weaken it in a particular area....... or depending on which direction one would want the steel to bend, just apply it to one side.
take for instance:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

The piece your are referring to is a vertical column. I asked HOW therm-whatever could be used in a vertical column. The end product of therm-whatever reaction is molten iron. Molten iron is a liquid...it flows. If you apply it to vertical column and ignite it...all of the molten iron just runs down the sides of the column..just like wax down a candle. It takes time for the molten iron to transfer it's heat, and must be held in place. Look at any demonstration of thermite on Youtube...the thermite is contained in some kind of pot or mold. None of the columns recovered at Ground Zero are covered in molten iron. No columns covered in once-molten iron..means no thermite.

Thermite transfers it's heat much to slowly to be used in a controlled demolition..as it requires split second timing. It's the reason no demo company uses it. It's primary use is welding things together...not cutting them apart.

[BigAl]

Because the chemical and physical processes bear no relationship to each other.

your going to have to do alittle bit better than that!!!

Why ?

A blind metallurgist could tell the difference by feel.

The chemical and physical processes bear no relationship to each other. The results bear no similarity.

[Scott Sommers]

I go away and come back 8 hours later and there's no sign of answer to my conference challemge. What's the matter? Senenmut, are you afraid of something? If you really want this to be taken seriously, if you really want to be talking with scientific ad legal exoperts, if yiou want a new investigation, this is what you have to do.

So maybe you don't mind being laughed at. Maybe that's what you really want. There are kids who want attention so badly they're willing to get beaten up everyday. Why not adults who want to be humiliated?

[Senenmut]

.



Why ?

A blind metallurgist could tell the difference by feel.

The chemical and physical processes bear no relationship to each other. The results bear no similarity.

iron, oxygen, sulfur....

[Senenmut]

I go away and come back 8 hours later and there's no sign of answer to my conference challemge. What's the matter? Senenmut, are you afraid of something? If you really want this to be taken seriously, if you really want to be talking with scientific ad legal exoperts, if yiou want a new investigation, this is what you have to do.

So maybe you don't mind being laughed at. Maybe that's what you really want. There are kids who want attention so badly they're willing to get beaten up everyday. Why not adults who want to be humiliated?

ive been alittle busy. that sounds like a great idea. ill have to look more into it.

[Senenmut]

The piece your are referring to is a vertical column. I asked HOW therm-whatever could be used in a vertical column. The end product of therm-whatever reaction is molten iron. Molten iron is a liquid...it flows. If you apply it to vertical column and ignite it...all of the molten iron just runs down the sides of the column..just like wax down a candle. It takes time for the molten iron to transfer it's heat, and must be held in place. Look at any demonstration of thermite on Youtube...the thermite is contained in some kind of pot or mold. None of the columns recovered at Ground Zero are covered in molten iron. No columns covered in once-molten iron..means no thermite.

Thermite transfers it's heat much to slowly to be used in a controlled demolition..as it requires split second timing. It's the reason no demo company uses it. It's primary use is welding things together...not cutting them apart.

there's an interesting piece of steel that fema looked at. nist also did some lab work on it. it was a perimeter column that they say lay in the prone position in the debris pile while the corrosive attack occured. well, just flip the prone position to the vertical and there you have it. check out the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairure modes pdf file. the samples name is K-16.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, senenmut, you are debating the wrong people. You should be pressuring Jones to do what he needs to do to convince real scientists and law enforcement that he has found evidence of foul play at the WTC.

He doesn't want to press Jones for those answers, to submit his samples for independent review, because deep down, HE KNOWS what the results will be. Jones and his paper will be proven frauds, and it will be one less piece of rotten ridiculous "evidence" for the TM to lay their hats on.

The members of the TM LOVE the ambiguity/unproven aspect of Jones results. Left unproven (as false), his paper works perfectly as a talking point to swindle the unsuspecting.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

there's an interesting piece of steel that fema looked at. nist also did some lab work on it. it was a perimeter column that they say lay in the prone position in the debris pile while the corrosive attack occured. well, just flip the prone position to the vertical and there you have it. check out the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairure modes pdf file. the samples name is K-16.

That is dumb.

[Scott Sommers]

ive been alittle busy. that sounds like a great idea. ill have to look more into it.

Ya I'm sure. And what about all your scientists Truthers? Dr. Steve never thought of this one? Tony Z? Dickie G. doesn't it bother you that all your scientists leaders are busy talking to college newspapers but none of will go near a conference of real scientists? Or is it that they've tried and the real scientists just aren't interested?

Put pressure on them. Tell Dickie G. this is what you want. we keep asking Tony Z. to try this, but he's chickened out so far.

Everyone here knows why this hasn't happened. And I suspect you do too. Truthers have nothing to say that real scientists have any interest in. They would have been talking to you by now if they did.

[RedIbis]

Post # 22 smart guy. I replied to that. This was what the post was in relation to. You quoted me first.

It does not get any more simple. Jeez, what a fail.

Post #45 smart guy. This is what you replied to. No one will the read the following and assume you were responding to another post. You said something stupid, own up to it and move on. It went like this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

funk de fino:
Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

[TexasJack]

Post #45 smart guy. This is what you replied to. No one will the read the following and assume you were responding to another post. You said something stupid, own up to it and move on. It went like this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

funk de fino:
Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

No, you're wrong. He was replying to niceguys post, you butted in with a question that didn't apply, and he told you to read again. You didn't follow the converstation.

[Macgyver1968]

there's an interesting piece of steel that fema looked at. nist also did some lab work on it. it was a perimeter column that they say lay in the prone position in the debris pile while the corrosive attack occured. well, just flip the prone position to the vertical and there you have it. check out the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairure modes pdf file. the samples name is K-16.

Huh? How is this an answer to my post?

Mac: How do you use thermite/thermate in a vertical application?

Senenmut: I like turtles!

Did this interesting piece of corroded steel have previously melted iron covering it? Did any of the recovered steel have previously melted iron on them? No. Therm-whatever does it's "work" with molten iron. No melted iron on the steel columns...no therm-whatever.

[BillyRayValentine]

Post #45 smart guy. This is what you replied to. No one will the read the following and assume you were responding to another post. You said something stupid, own up to it and move on. It went like this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

funk de fino:
Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

Sorry, have to weigh in here. Stuff like this completely baffles me. Clearly, CLEARLY, this whole to-do was precipitated by you reading and failing to understand the point of message #22.

You are clearly lost, which is OK. I mean seriously, we all have brain farts from time to time. But you must have an inkling that you're lost, at least to some degree, so why on earth would you get indignant and start hurling accusations of stupidity?

Stop embarrassing yourself. You are 100%, precisely wrong here. Nothing ambiguous about it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

RedIBis won't admit that they're wrong. So without further making him/herself look more like a fool I'll simply say: "You've got no evidence to prove s***! So why bother?"

[ImANiceGuy]

for what? a criticism based on reality?

'Whatchotakinboutwillis' joke; but i was just joikng myself...

[RedIbis]

No, you're wrong. He was replying to niceguys post, you butted in with a question that didn't apply, and he told you to read again. You didn't follow the converstation.

Really? So even though it says:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

He was "replying to niceguys(sic) post"?

And to avoid any confusion and get funk to actually address the question, I said,

"I'll rephrase my question,"

It's charming the way you guys run to each other's defense, but funk is either avoiding the hole he dug himself into by not answering a very straightforward question, or he's asking me to believe that by responding to my post he was responding to someone else's and I'm supposed to know that.

[Senenmut]

Huh? How is this an answer to my post?

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Mac: How do you use thermite/thermate in a vertical application?
havent you watched that jesse ventura clip of that guy painting on nanothermite onto a steel column. or those "red chip" nanothermite that jones found (considering they came layered) could have been used like tape to go around a connection or a spot that needed alittle extra help to fail. then spray some blazeshild over the stuff for alittle extra kick.

nist assumes sample k-16 was in the prone position when the corrosion occured. think about it in the vertical position and there you have it. just like the fema bpat reported:
"It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Did this interesting piece of corroded steel have previously melted iron covering it? Did any of the recovered steel have previously melted iron on them? No. Therm-whatever does it's "work" with molten iron. No melted iron on the steel columns...no therm-whatever.


what did the corrosive "slag" consist of......

[TexasJack]

Really? So even though it says:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

He was "replying to niceguys(sic) post"?

And to avoid any confusion and get funk to actually address the question, I said,

"I'll rephrase my question,"

It's charming the way you guys run to each other's defense, but funk is either avoiding the hole he dug himself into by not answering a very straightforward question, or he's asking me to believe that by responding to my post he was responding to someone else's and I'm supposed to know that.

Your question had nothing to do with the topic of what was posted, live with it and admit your error.

It's charming how you use the "defense" excuse when you can't deal with your own inadequacies.

[Macgyver1968]

havent you watched that jesse ventura clip of that guy painting on nanothermite onto a steel column.
Yes I have. He painted the top of a horizontal column..where it would stay in place, rather than running off. You also might note that the nano-thermite paint did nothing to the column.


or those "red chip" nanothermite that jones found (considering they came layered) could have been used like tape to go around a connection or a spot that needed alittle extra help to fail. then spray some blazeshild over the stuff for alittle extra kick.


And in a vertical application, as soon as the thermite was ignited, it would become liquid iron, and would run off. Here's an image of the aftermath of thermite reaction...note the "stalactite" of previous molten iron. Note the droplets of previously molten iron inside the pot. Note the pools of previous molten iron.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zIzmtkioa5w/SFLF75MFHjI/AAAAAAAAAbQ/6Zv4_blRquI/s400/thermite-8.jpg

If thermite was used, you would see similar molten formations on the steel...we don't.


nist assumes sample k-16 was in the prone position when the corrosion occured. think about it in the vertical position and there you have it. just like the fema bpat reported:
"It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."


And there you have what? The position of the steel in the rubble pile wouldn't have made much difference in the corrosive damage. The position of the steel in the tower would greatly affect the effectiveness of a thermite application if the thermite was just "painted on". Here is an image of the aftermath of a thermite reaction on a vertical steel column, where a large square cone held the thermite in place.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/thermite.jpg

Note the two things that the large volume of thermite did to the column...Jack and Squat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkODHlDQpeU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkODHlDQpeU#t=6m46s)

175 pounds of thermite did nothing to a column smaller than those in the WTC....how could a thin, painted-on coating do anything? Notice how brightly the thermite burns...why don't we see flares like this all over the building before the collapse?

[funk de fino]

Post #45 smart guy. This is what you replied to. No one will the read the following and assume you were responding to another post. You said something stupid, own up to it and move on. It went like this:

Originally Posted by RedIbis
I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

funk de fino:
Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?


Clearly, I cannot be the dumb one if you are the one who does not understand my original post and makes up strawmen for it. My original point was the false claim. Yiou tried to make up crap later. I told you to read my post again.

[funk de fino]

Really? So even though it says:

Originally Posted by RedIbis

He was "replying to niceguys(sic) post"?

And to avoid any confusion and get funk to actually address the question, I said,

"I'll rephrase my question,"

It's charming the way you guys run to each other's defense, but funk is either avoiding the hole he dug himself into by not answering a very straightforward question, or he's asking me to believe that by responding to my post he was responding to someone else's and I'm supposed to know that.

Your attempt to rephrase an irrelevant question was a waste of time. You are wrong on this. You quoted me first. I told you to read it again because you misunderstood it. Deliberately by the looks of it.

[Senenmut]

Jones didn't prove that his sample did, either. He showed secondary electron images of one sample, then burned a completely different sample and showed the results. Epic failure.
so your saying that the iron microspheres were already in the chips?

To answer your other asinine questions, the paint in question was the anti-corrosive coating applied to all of the major structural members in the twin towers. The organic binder used in the coating combusts at approximately 400 C, and the pigment used iron oxide as a colorant. This is probably the 10th time I've had to repeat this.
i dont even think sunstealer would agree with ya there. remember that some of the bilayerd chips had more than one layer. the gray layer had a high iron and oxygen content and one chip even had 5 layers.

[CORed]

but your forgetting something skeptic scott in taiwan...thermate + steel shows the same charactistic corrosion as found by Barnett et al!

Nobody's come close to proving that. All we have is a quote from a known liar in a blog.

[CORed]

so your saying that the iron microspheres were already in the chips?


i dont even think sunstealer would agree with ya there. remember that some of the bilayerd chips had more than one layer. the gray layer had a high iron and oxygen content and one chip even had 5 layers.

So you've never heard of a piece of steel getting multiple coats of different kinds of paint over several years? Really?

[Senenmut]

Yes I have. He painted the top of a horizontal column..where it would stay in place, rather than running off. You also might note that the nano-thermite paint did nothing to the column.
i think he just painted on 1 layer. anyway, i would also put blazeshield over the painted on thermite or any other thermitic material. take for instance this observation:
"the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue."

maybe the blazeshild would keep the reaction from running off longer and attack the steel more. plus, i would assume it would force the thermite toward the steel instead of wasting all that energy on nothing.

If thermite was used, you would see similar molten formations on the steel...we don't.
what did the "slag" consist of?

[Senenmut]

So you've never heard of a piece of steel getting multiple coats of different kinds of paint over several years? Really?

sure buddy!! especially the gray layer high in iron and oxygen content. steel members always need some more of that between the primer.

[beachnut]

sure buddy!! especially the gray layer high in iron and oxygen content. steel members always need some more of that between the primer.
Oops!
Oxide Iron Black 722 Applications of iron oxide black: Industrial coatings, antirust paint and priming paint;
anti-rust paints made with iron oxide are in gray - how long did you research paint before making a false statement of woo?

The perfect record of 911 truth being a cult of people who make up lies based on ignorance is not broken.

Iron oxide! Know what iron oxide is? Do you check anything before you post nonsense? Why is Jones insane on thermite? When did he go nuts?

[The Almond]

so your saying that the iron microspheres were already in the chips?

Did I say that? Let me check...Nope, I didn't. Please return when you're ready to discuss the substance of my post.

i dont even think sunstealer would agree with ya there. remember that some of the bilayerd chips had more than one layer. the gray layer had a high iron and oxygen content and one chip even had 5 layers.
So what?

Also, nice job ignoring this:

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever taken sunflower seeds, dipped them in 18 M acetic acid, then coated them in silver paint, then put them in an oven at 1000 C, and analyzed the ash? Why not?

Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question. The reason is, the above described process won't tell you anything about the sunflower seeds. Their reaction to acetic acid is trivial, what they look like when they're silver is meaningless, the ash product contains very little of the original structure and is equally meaningless. If you want to prove it's a sunflower seed, you can do a DNA test. If you want to determine the viability of the seed, you can plant it.

Where am I going with this? No one has ever shown that you can determine if a material is "thermitic" by separating it out with a magnet from an amalgamated dust sample, soaking it in MEK and then setting it on fire. Jones is using a meaningless process, pointing to the ash and saying, "See? Because you can't reproduce it using Home Depot brand latex paint, the material must be thermite!!!" More to the point, if Jones wants to prove that his material is thermite, he has to do the appropriate tests to eliminate the contender materials. To date, he's done nothing that warrants anything other than ridicule.


This, however:

havent you watched that jesse ventura clip of that guy painting on nanothermite onto a steel column. or those "red chip" nanothermite that jones found (considering they came layered) could have been used like tape to go around a connection or a spot that needed alittle extra help to fail. then spray some blazeshild over the stuff for alittle extra kick.

shows cognitive dissonance far beyond what I've ever encountered. Please read and understand the following sentence:

Painting "thermite" on steel and igniting it does not raise the temperature of the steel sufficiently to cause major structural failure.

[The Almond]

sure buddy!! especially the gray layer high in iron and oxygen content. steel members always need some more of that between the primer.

Micaceous Iron Oxide (http://www.enviroprotectcoatings.com/iron_pigments.php)

[beachnut]

Thermite paint!? If Jones tested this paint he would come up with thermite!

http://www.huaxiazhiqi.com/english/ProductShow.asp?ArticleID=831

Composition From alkyd resins, additives, mica, iron oxide, aluminum powder paste and other anti-rust paint, organic solvent composition of the ash cloud iron Alkyd Topcoat.
BINGO - Jones finds thermite! lol, in paint!

If Jones tested his diaper when he comes up with his best woo, he would come up with thermite.

Jones is insane with his 911 issues; he is nuts on 911 and can't form a reality based conclusion.

[Senenmut]

Oops!

anti-rust paints made with iron oxide are in gray - how long did you research paint before making a false statement of woo?

The perfect record of 911 truth being a cult of people who make up lies based on ignorance is not broken.

Iron oxide! Know what iron oxide is? Do you check anything before you post nonsense? Why is Jones insane on thermite? When did he go nuts?

considering nist told us what the primer was and was made with, no mention of that one from what i remember.

[Macgyver1968]

i think he just painted on 1 layer.

How many layers would it take? How many different layers did Jones observe in his paint chip sample? 175 pounds of thermite did nothing to a column...why would a couple of thin layers do anything more?


anyway, i would also put blazeshield over the painted on thermite or any other thermitic material. take for instance this observation:
"the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue."

maybe the blazeshild would keep the reaction from running off longer and attack the steel more. plus, i would assume it would force the thermite toward the steel instead of wasting all that energy on nothing.


What would spray on fire retardant do? If it's sprayed on to the painted on thermite...when the thermite turns to liquid, it doesn't have anything to stick to anymore and slides off with the rest of the molten iron. What you assume is simply wrong.


what did the "slag" consist of?

What "slag" are you referring to?

[Senenmut]

Did I say that? Let me check...Nope, I didn't. Please return when you're ready to discuss the substance of my post.
do you think the iron sphere's were there or NOT there before heating to 430c?


Also, nice job ignoring this:
you stated "dont bother answering"
but-
i do agree with you.


This, however:


shows cognitive dissonance far beyond what I've ever encountered. Please read and understand the following sentence:

Painting "thermite" on steel and igniting it does not raise the temperature of the steel sufficiently to cause major structural failure.

like i posted earlier, i havent seen one experiment done with multiple layers of painted on thermitic material surrounded by a thick layer of blazeshield ( i think it was 2 or 3 inches thick). or your typical thermite or thermate with a thick layer of blazeshiled. also, considering those "red chips' came in multiple layers, a few hundred layers + a sulfur layer here and there surrounded by blazeshield might also do some damage. IMO, that would help keep the energy closer to the steel. if i had the material, id love to do it myself!! got any to donate?

[Senenmut]

Thermite paint!? If Jones tested this paint he would come up with thermite!

http://www.huaxiazhiqi.com/english/ProductShow.asp?ArticleID=831

BINGO - Jones finds thermite! lol, in paint!

If Jones tested his diaper when he comes up with his best woo, he would come up with thermite.

Jones is insane with his 911 issues; he is nuts on 911 and can't form a reality based conclusion.

can you order it with nano sized particles!!!

[Edx]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM:)

Whether he is lying outright or just exaggerating, I think the fact he hasn't even published this in his own fake journal is very telling.

[BigAl]

d

like i posted earlier, i havent seen one experiment done with multiple layers of painted on thermitic material surrounded by a thick layer of blazeshield ( i think it was 2 or 3 inches thick).

It takes about 2 pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel.

A coat of thermite "paint" would melt steel equal to about half that thickness off the beam it was painted on while barely raising the temperature of the rest of it.

Calculations here.

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

[T.A.M.]

Whether he is lying outright or just exaggerating, I think the fact he hasn't even published this in his own fake journal is very telling.

Bingo. He runs the journal for cripes sakes. He could carry out an experiment linking dog poo to the collapse of the towers and that journal would have it published.

TAM:D

[RedIbis]

Your attempt to rephrase an irrelevant question was a waste of time. You are wrong on this. You quoted me first. I told you to read it again because you misunderstood it. Deliberately by the looks of it.

Ok, so what did you mean by the following? Feel free to put it into the context you think it belongs in.

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

So that either means that all of the steel was examined by forensic investigators, or not all of the steel was examined by forensic experts. If the latter is what you meant, people will usually use this word 'not' to qualify an absolute.

I'm playing along here, but it's obvious what you're trying to do is avoid the question you're being asked.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

[DGM]

Bingo. He runs the journal for cripes sakes. He could carry out an experiment linking dog poo to the collapse of the towers and that journal would have it published.

TAM:D
Dog poo? Maybe the added wieght of all the bird **** on the roofs......but, dog poo?

:D

[funk de fino]

Ok, so what did you mean by the following? Feel free to put it into the context you think it belongs in.

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

So that either means that all of the steel was examined by forensic investigators, or not all of the steel was examined by forensic experts. If the latter is what you meant, people will usually use this word 'not' to qualify an absolute.

I'm playing along here, but it's obvious what you're trying to do is avoid the question you're being asked.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

It's simple enough. Even for you.

[DGM]

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I might be confused here but, You do know that the tower steel was uniquely marked as to position in the buildings and WTC 7 steel was not (not with any markings that could be referenced after construction anyway). If I remember correctly that was part of the problem with the WTC 7 investigation. It was next to impossible to determine what member came from what location.

So to answer your question. Yes.

[RedIbis]

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

It's simple enough. Even for you.

Apparently my question was not simple enough for you since you didn't bother answering it.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I can understand why you don't want to answer it.

[dafydd]

Apparently my question was not simple enough for you since you didn't bother answering it.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I can understand why you don't want to answer it.

Even if they couldn't,what difference does it make?

[RedIbis]

Even if they couldn't,what difference does it make?

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

You guys are supposed to be the skeptics that use science for belief. You suck up an implausible collapse hypothesis without even bothering to ask for the physical evidence. Pretty pathetic, really.

[DGM]

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

You guys are supposed to be the skeptics that use science for belief. You suck up an implausible collapse hypothesis without even bothering to ask for the physical evidence. Pretty pathetic, really.
They could tell the difference. Like I said before the WTC steel was marked.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

[RedIbis]

They could tell the difference. Like I said before the WTC steel was marked.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Quote, chapter, page number, anything. I don't doubt that they could, but you might see what questions such an answer will raise.

[DGM]

Quote, chapter, page number, anything. I don't doubt that they could, but you might see what questions such an answer will raise.
That whole chapter deals with the issue. Page 9 has a list of figures. Figure 3-6 is typical markings. You might want to read the whole thing (its only 112 pages)


ETA: Fig. 3-6 is on page 43 of the PDF.

[RedIbis]

That whole chapter deals with the issue. Page 9 has a list of figures. Figure 3-6 is typical markings. You might want to read the whole thing (its only 112 pages)

Please refer to that section, page or passage that discusses the examination of WTC 7 steel and how it was distinguished from tower steel.

[DGM]

Please refer to that section, page or passage that discusses the examination of WTC 7 steel and how it was distinguished from tower steel.
That section concerns the identification and markings on the WTC steel NOT WTC 7. If you read the reports (you know research what your arguing about :rolleyes:) you'd know the the steel in WTC 7 was not marked as well. I mentioned this before.

I thought you said you read the reports? Don't be so lazy.

[Dave Rogers]

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

NIST NCSTAR1.3B (draft), p.xxv: "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC7".

We know that some steel from the WTC7 rubble pile was studied, because the steel that had suffered high temperature corrosion and eutectic melting came from there. However, we also know that there was no way of determining which part of WTC7 any particular member originated from. So, given that the steel's point of origin could not be identified and that it had been seriously corroded in the post-collapse fires, it should be fairly clear to anyone without an agenda that study of the steel from the WTC7 debris pile would be unlikely to yield any useful information on the condition of a specific part of a specific structural element of WTC7 immediately before the collapse.

Should I start rehearsing the simplified, five-year-old-child level explanations now, or wait for RedIbis's next pretence of incomprehension?

Dave

[RedIbis]

That section concerns the identification and markings on the WTC steel NOT WTC 7. If you read the reports (you know research what your arguing about :rolleyes:) you'd know the the steel in WTC 7 was not marked as well. I mentioned this before.

I thought you said you read the reports? Don't be so lazy.

So you think markings is what a forensic investigator would need to distinguish WTC 7 steel from tower steel?

I did read the chapter so I know exactly what it says about WTC 7 steel and how it would be identified.

[DGM]

So you think markings is what a forensic investigator would need to distinguish WTC 7 steel from tower steel?

I did read the chapter so I know exactly what it says about WTC 7 steel and how it would be identified.
After it was moved (to freshkills), Yes. I'm sure the size and make-up of the member would help them also.

Are you saying they couldn't tell the difference?

[RedIbis]

However, we also know that there was no way of determining which part of WTC7 any particular member originated from.
Dave

Bolding to highlight how stupid and lazy this so-called "debunking" is.

You suck up their excuses way too easily. You accept this crap merely because you are invested in their unsubstantiated hypotheses.

The entirety of WTC 7 steel did not experience eutectic melting and any second year architecture student with some bldg plans could probably figure out where structural members came from.

[Dave Rogers]

The entirety of WTC 7 steel did not experience eutectic melting and any second year architecture student with some bldg plans could probably figure out where structural members came from.

The building plans should be online somewhere. How about you take a look at them, figure out how many unique column compositions there were throughout the building, and determine how many places each of those column compositions was replicated? You seem to think every structural element of WTC7 was tailor-made to suit its specific location, and that there were no common cross-sections between different columns. I suspect this is just the product of your ignorance, but I'd be interested to see you justify your belief that a significant proportion of structural members in the building had unique properties.

Dave

[DGM]

Bolding to highlight how stupid and lazy this so-called "debunking" is.

You suck up their excuses way too easily. You accept this crap merely because you are invested in their unsubstantiated hypotheses.

The entirety of WTC 7 steel did not experience eutectic melting and any second year architecture student with some bldg plans could probably figure out where structural members came from.
Tell you what RedIbis, Why don't you give us an explanation that better fits the events of the day.

[DGM]

I'd be interested to see you justify your belief that a significant proportion of structural members in the building had unique properties.

Dave

I would too! I've seen the plans and good luck to RedIbis on this one. Somehow I get the feeling that he will just hand wave this away. :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

Tell you what RedIbis, Why don't you give us an explanation that better fits the events of the day.

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.

[DGM]

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.
I'm simply pointing out that NIST has made a very detailed report and you (and the "truthers") have not. Why is that? Why do you try to "poke holes" but never offer any better explanation?

Bottom lines is, there's no need to defend what has no competition.

[Dave Rogers]

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.

So let's get back to your indefensible position, shall we? How many of the structural members of WTC7 were unique in design to a specific location and therefore could possibly have been positively identified in the rubble pile? Or would you like to sidetrack the discussion away from that one now?

Dave

[RedIbis]

So let's get back to your indefensible position, shall we? How many of the structural members of WTC7 were unique in design to a specific location and therefore could possibly have been positively identified in the rubble pile? Or would you like to sidetrack the discussion away from that one now?

Dave

Wouldn't how they were affected by heat also help determine what location they came from? I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members? Did they recover Column 79?

[Edx]

I dont see why this is a relevant question

The corrosion doesnt have anything to do with thermite
Nano thermite wouldn't make any sense
Explosives wouldn't make any sense.

Until there is a reason to be suspicious then the question is of little significance.

[Dave Rogers]

Wouldn't how they were affected by heat also help determine what location they came from? I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Good god, I didn't realise you knew so little about science.

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Secondly, you're asking for study of the columns to determine the thermal history of the structure, then glibly saying that you can use the known thermal history of the structure to determine which column, and therefore the thermal history of which region, you're trying to determine. Circular Argument: see Argument, Circular.

But the first one is a howler. This is even worse than femr2 not understanding inelastic collisions.

Dave

[dtugg]

LOL. RedIbis gets owned yet again.

[BillyRayValentine]

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members?

Wow. You really have no idea how silly this question is, do you?

Scary stupid. You have no business commenting on any of this, you ignorant buffoon.

[RedIbis]

Good god, I didn't realise you knew so little about science.

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Secondly, you're asking for study of the columns to determine the thermal history of the structure, then glibly saying that you can use the known thermal history of the structure to determine which column, and therefore the thermal history of which region, you're trying to determine. Circular Argument: see Argument, Circular.

But the first one is a howler. This is even worse than femr2 not understanding inelastic collisions.

Dave

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

[RedIbis]

Wow. You really have no idea how silly this question is, do you?

Scary stupid. You have no business commenting on any of this, you ignorant buffoon.

What's very stupid is that you don't think there would be any discernible evidence of these occurences.

[ElMondoHummus]

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Slight digression here: If NIST had actually kept pieces from WTC 7, do we think it might have been possible to identify failures that could have been due to thermal expansion via their effects on connection points? I'd guess you'd see deformations consistent with the stress they'd put on bolt holes, bolts, rivets, welds, etc. And didn't they actually identify creep on the steel from the main towers from similar deformations? I need to look over those sections of the NIST report again.

Now I admit, I'm no engineer. And furthermore, I'm hard pressed to explain how to differentiate between distortions caused by thermal expansion and distortions caused by actual mechanical force, not to mention the fact that there was almost certainly combinations of both occuring at the same time on many, many of the structural elements in the building. But, I'd guess that in principle some determination could be made that a certain deformation would have some probability of having been a result of thermal effects. Therefore, I'm throwing this out there as bait to hopefully turn the conversation towards something moderately productive.

[funk de fino]

Apparently my question was not simple enough for you since you didn't bother answering it.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I can understand why you don't want to answer it.

This is pure irony from the person who has run from many questions I have asked you in recent times. The fact you cannot see your own utter hypocrisy is noted.

As far as my point is concerned. They inspected all the steel and put aside any strange pieces. The fact there was only two of these pieces put aside should tell you something. The fact one was from the WTC tower and one was from WTC7 should also tell you something.

[funk de fino]

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

You are the only person who thinks this is unprecedented. To the rest of us it is science. The only thing "unprecedented" was the temps it happened at and NIST exlained that. The fact you have not read the report leads you to miss that. Along with the exact failure mode. This has been another fail thread to add your many.

[Dave Rogers]

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

I'm beginning, at last, to understand the sheer depth of ignorance from which these pronouncements of yours emanate. I think you believe that, because something is difficult for you to understand, it must be nigh-on impossible for anyone else to understand. I can see why thermal expansion might be an incomprehensible load of mumbo-jumbo to you, because you have simply not the faintest idea what it is. For those who understand it, have even actually measured it, it's much less of a mystery. Any material must expand when heated, and we know to a very high precision exactly how much common materials will expand. But to you, it's just another uncharted land in the vast expanse of ignorance that surrounds you; and if you don't understand it, why should you believe that anybody else does?

Now I've got over the initial shock, you have my deepest sympathies. The level of ignorance under which you appear to operate is almost at the level of a mental handicap. I'm impressed that you manage to function at all, and not in the least surprised that in this particular area you function so poorly.

We have actually tried, over the last few years to my knowledge and possibly before, to remedy your ignorance by explaining some very basic concepts to you. It's a little difficult, though, because you refuse to accept that anyone knows anything you don't, and respond with angry denial to any attempts at education. And that's your tragedy; the nature of your inability prevents you from overcoming it. A classic case of the Dunning-Kroeger effect in action. So however sorry I am for you, there seems to be very little I can do about it. Maybe some day you'll come to understand how desperately you need help.

Dave

[funk de fino]

I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

I am just repeating this for posterity as the stupidest imagine he has ever made.

[RedIbis]

But, I'd guess that in principle some determination could be made that a certain deformation would have some probability of having been a result of thermal effects.

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

ETA: And since there is no way to study this, it's a perfectly reasonable claim on which to premise an entire collapse hypothesis.

[Dave Rogers]

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

RedIbis, when you don't understand a language, it's a good idea to stop shouting in it. All you're doing is exhibiting your ignorance more widely.

If steel was strained beyond its elastic limit, permanent deformation would be visible. This might be due to thermal expansion, or it might be due to some other deformation of the structure as a result of, for example, the total collapse of that structure, characterised by multiple impacts between different parts of the structure. It would be very difficult, at best, and quite likely impossible, to determine exactly which was responsible. That's not to say that no thermal deformation could be observed. Creep would be clearly discernible; but creep is not thermal expansion.

Pure thermal expansion, by definition, cannot be detected in the history of an object. Plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion can, but that isn't thermal expansion.

ETA: And, of course, it's perfectly trivial to know precisely how much an object expanded thermally, if we know the history of its temperature. Therefore, if we have a model that tells us that temperature history, we know the exact amount of thermal expansion experienced by the object at any time. Unless, of course, we reject our understanding of the laws of physics entirely and rely only on direct measurements, which seems to be the limitation RedIbis wants to impose.

And we're still left with my second point: you need a description of the thermal history of the structure, in order to identify specific elements, in order to obtain a description of the thermal history of the structure. The big advantage of thermal modelling is that it permits the determination of the thermal history without having to know it in advance.

Dave

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, when you don't understand a language, it's a good idea to stop shouting in it. All you're doing is exhibiting your ignorance more widely.

If steel was strained beyond its elastic limit, permanent deformation would be visible. This might be due to thermal expansion, or it might be due to some other deformation of the structure as a result of, for example, the total collapse of that structure, characterised by multiple impacts between different parts of the structure. It would be very difficult, at best, and quite likely impossible, to determine exactly which was responsible. That's not to say that no thermal deformation could be observed. Creep would be clearly discernible; but creep is not thermal expansion.

Pure thermal expansion, by definition, cannot be detected in the history of an object. Plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion can, but that isn't thermal expansion.

And we're still left with my second point: you need a description of the thermal history of the structure, in order to identify specific elements, in order to obtain a description of the thermal history of the structure. The big advantage of thermal modelling is that it permits the determination of the thermal history without having to know it in advance.

Dave

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.

[dtugg]

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.

Nope. It's just you.

[carlitos]

Is proving that steel thermally expanded similar to proving that water was once ice?

[Dave Rogers]

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.

I can understand how, if you simply don't understand any of this, you might believe that one thing you can't understand contradicts another thing you can't understand. It's the entire basis of your belief system. Sadly, the rest of us do understand it, and we're beginning to see just how little you do know. It's time to give up on you, I think. Go to night school and take some science classes, and in a few years you might be competent to discuss these issues; at the moment, your posts are simply embarrassing to read.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Is proving that steel thermally expanded similar to proving that water was once ice?

More or less. I think we should find out what homeopaths have to say about 9/11; after all, if water has a memory, why not steel?

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

ETA: And since there is no way to study this, it's a perfectly reasonable claim on which to premise an entire collapse hypothesis.

I was responding to Dave, not you. You stay out of this; I had posted in order to try to move the conversation to something productive, as opposed to what you've been doing. Furthermore, if you had read what he wrote, he was referring to the reversibility of expansion upon cooling; that's what he meant by writing "thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation" i.e once it expands, it doesn't stay larger i.e. expansion and contraction is a thermal dependent property. And that is the precise point I was responding to, in that steel components themselves may contract, but the distortions that occur at their points of connection may in fact remain. And above and beyond that may in fact be identifiable to some degree. In short, I was expanding on the topic. And unlike you, I was contributing, not subtracting from the value of the conversation.

What in God's name has happened to you, Red? At least in the past you were arguing in favor of a belief; now, your whole purpose seems to be to simply take the opposite stance of whatever peoople here say just to be argumentative. You now contribute less and serve less of a purpose to either 9/11 "Truth" or this forum than you used to when you were retailing the conspiracy canon. Is this what you've reduced yourself to? Opposing just for the sake of opposition? I know I need to expand on my external hobbies, but if I need to, you doubly need to. Your contributions are a ghost of what they used to be.

[funk de fino]

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.

Stop digging.

[dtugg]

An alternative theory to RedIbis being completely ignorant of science is that he is just a liar and pretending to be so ignorant. Don't ask me why he would do this. But it is a proven fact that RedIbis will lie even if there is no rational reason for him to do so.

For proof, see this whopper. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6014901&postcount=153)

[BillyRayValentine]

What's very stupid is that you don't think there would be any discernible evidence of these occurences.

Firstly, nice try, but you fool no one. It's quite clear what you meant when you said "I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members...Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members?". Enough said.

Second, even your amended version is idiotic. So you think that steel members that had experienced thermal expansion before the collapse would show "discernible evidence"? Discernible from, say, damage incurred during the collapse of a 47 story building and/or within the resulting pile of burning rubble?

Totally ridiculous. What motivates someone to indulge in such stupidity, especially when they must be aware of their own ignorance? Baffling, as ever.

[beachnut]

can you order it with nano sized particles!!!
Paint? Yes the samples Jones had match paint! Sorry you joined Jones? Jones is insane, that is his excuse for spreading lies and moronic delusions. Prove paint does not have the sized particles Jones delusions has? Prove anything about 911 Jones believes and you have a Pulitzer Prize; but they don't give Pulitzer Prizes to nut case insane ideas. Jones is failure; 8 years of constant lies and delusions.

I showed paint which has the same chemicals as thermite. Jones has no clue what he is doing in chemistry and Jones has no clue what he is trying to defend and what it means. It takes less than 0.33 seconds to find iron oxide in paint, it took Jones years to find some dust and make up delusions. Failure

[CORed]

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

ETA: And since there is no way to study this, it's a perfectly reasonable claim on which to premise an entire collapse hypothesis.

Welcome to TrutherWorld, where gravity, thermal expansion, and the thermal weakening of steel are implausible, but silent explosives, rigging a demolition in a few hours in a burning building, cutting vertical steel columns with thermite, and space beams are plausible.

[Edx]

Welcome to TrutherWorld, where gravity, thermal expansion, and the thermal weakening of steel are implausible, but silent explosives, rigging a demolition in a few hours in a burning building, cutting vertical steel columns with thermite, and space beams are plausible.

And exploading paint. Dont forget Jones' highly explosive thermite paint. :D

[RedIbis]

Welcome to TrutherWorld, where gravity, thermal expansion, and the thermal weakening of steel are implausible

Stop lying. Quote where I said any of this.

[Edx]

Stop lying.

Stop quote mining.

[Senenmut]

It takes about 2 pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel.

A coat of thermite "paint" would melt steel equal to about half that thickness off the beam it was painted on while barely raising the temperature of the rest of it.

Calculations here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4477911#post4477911
from your link
sunstealer quote:
"The mass of the reactants is twice that of the liquid iron produced so 1 litre (2.1Kg) thermite will produce 1.05Kg of liquid iron with a volume of 0.15 Litres (150 cm−3) given liquid iron density of 6.98 g·cm−3."

i think liquid iron is just on aspect of the overall picture. here is what henryco stated in a thread:

'This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction."

just imagine a few hundred layers of the stuff along with a layer of sulfur here and there behind a few inches of blazeshield. if one could start the reaction close to the steel, it would be a machine gun effect with wave after wave of extremely hot molten iron and sulfur as layer after layer reacted destroying/corroding the steel. it would be interesting to see if the blazeshild would just melt or be blown off.

[sheeplesnshills]

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.


He doesn't, but you do............

Steel expands with heat, that expansion could cause a failure to a joint in a building AND/OR a softened bean could buckle and fail bringing down the building AND/OR the collapsing building could break joints and buckle cool and heat softened beams, AND the pile could burn for weeks and beam could buckle in the fire quite independently of the original fire and collapse.


Please let us know how they could tell when a particular beam suffered damage? They couldn't so they modeled it and found a possible failure mechanism. Was it the right one?..........I don't know, I'm a mech eng but this is a little out of my field) but your alternative one has no evidence for it at all so why would I choose to believe your rather implausible CD theory and not NISTs perfectly plausible one or just accept that what EXACTLY caused the failure may never be known but since there is zero evidence for anything other than a impact and fire cause there is no point discussing it further?

SHOW US EVIDENCE OF CD!

[tfk]

Red,


Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself.


Uh, no. He's not.


I think you realize how silly you sound.


One of you does sound massively silly.

It just isn't who you think it is.

1. Can you articulate - in precise detail - exactly what NIST wanted to find out from the steel samples that they gathered? (No generic responses accepted.)

2. Can you articulate in precise terms the methodology that NIST stated from the very start of their investigation by which they intended to find out what caused the collapse of the towers & WTC7?

3. Can you articulate exactly what role the information found out from the examination of the steel (the first question) played in that overall analysis?

NIST has stated all of this precisely.
I've quoted it here a half dozen times. I'm certain that many others have as well.

The simple act of restating it in your own words will provide you with a far better understanding of the process than you simply re-reading my (or someone else's) 5th, or 50th, reiteration of the same info.

Furthermore, if you can state the above, you will understand why your quest for the straw that broke the camel's back is pointless & irrelevant.
___

Re: thermal expansion. It is not a guess that it happened. It is a certainty.

It is a certainty exactly how much occurred.

It is NOT a new, unrecognized or unique phenomenon. It is 100% guaranteed every single time you heat up a piece of steel.

Furthermore, IMHO, there is an approximately 99.999% probability that it has contributed to building (or other large structure) failure in the past. But simply went unrecognized.

The fact that it wasn't recognized previously does NOT mean that it never happened. It was recognized in the case of WTC7 precisely because of the extensive, unprecedented extent of the analyses performed.

You do realize, don't you, that thermal expansion alone was not sufficient to bring down WTC7. That there were other unique features of WTC7 design that combined with the expansion. And that, had those other features not existed, thermal expansion alone would likely not have brought down the building.

Tom

[tfk]

just imagine a few hundred layers of the stuff along with a layer of sulfur here and there behind a few inches of blazeshield. if one could start the reaction close to the steel, it would be a machine gun effect with wave after wave of extremely hot molten iron and sulfur as layer after layer reacted destroying/corroding the steel. it would be interesting to see if the blazeshild would just melt or be blown off.

[Emphasis added. -tk]

Why "imagine"?

Why not DO IT?

See if you can get your imagined hundred layers of the stuff to melt a WTC sized beam - stood vertically - in the REQUIRED 0.02 seconds.

For that matter, see if you can get it to melt in ANY time frame.

Others have tried.

And failed.

[Lxj]

He is a lying piece of crap. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the Towers. They were both examined. As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators and some pieces put aside for further study, it seems these were the only two pieces with these characteristics. Unless you have evidence otherwise.


There were problems identifying where in the building the steel was from on WTC7 because it wasn't marked like the WTC steel was. However, since WTC's steel was marked as to where it went; that's why they can say beam xxxxx is from the 74 floor twenty columns in.

Please keep in mind that, that is merely an example. So, WTC1 & 2 had steel marked and these markings matched the blueprints that the kooks say no longer exist.