Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction [Archive]

T.A.M.

16th July 2010, 08:22 AM

What role would sulfidation, or sulfur at all, play in the weakening of the steel and collapse of the buildings?

Kind of like asking them why they didn't test for pixie dust.

You approach it with the preconceived notion that explosives were used, thermite in particular, and then work backwards...because that is the truther way. I have as much evidence that pixies were behind 9/11 (that being NO evidence) so why not check for pixie dust?

I know I am being extreme here, but you get my drift?

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE of thermite, so why would sulfur be important to collapse INITIATION?

If it is not important, from a rational, SANE, pov, then why should NIST have conducted such experiments?

TAM:)

Edit: I am sure if he has nothing better to do, Mackey or someone else can actually address the ezperiment, and the errors in truther logic that I AM SURE exist within.

16.5

16th July 2010, 08:26 AM

TheRedWorm

16th July 2010, 08:27 AM

How about this, Red; next time you post something to debunk, make it your hypothesis on what brought the towers down.

BigAl

16th July 2010, 09:10 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?
.

Since the experimenter has thermate as a hypothesis, his first and essential and obvious experiment would be to get or make some thermate and apply it to the beam and see if the results look anything like the recovered sample.

Until this experiment is done, every other experiment is pointless.

As for this test, IMO (and my unused university chemistry) tells me the video fails because it didn't burn for weeks at high humidity but I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to chime in.

Sword_Of_Truth

16th July 2010, 12:49 PM

And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

Because the eutectic reactions didn't occur until after the collapses.

Seymour Butz

16th July 2010, 05:00 PM

And because FEMA did it.

Biederman/Sisson

DGM

16th July 2010, 05:16 PM

Why is it always "debunk this" (to any crap anyone wants to string together) instead of the "youtube scientist" doing the work and actually proving the "theory"?

Cl1mh4224rd

16th July 2010, 05:23 PM

Meh. The entire first half of the video does nothing but poison the well and prime the audience to accept a half-assed experiment as proof of a conclusion that's already been made.

Edx

16th July 2010, 06:40 PM

Can someone who understands this explain what was wrong with the experiment THIS time?

Click here to skip to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw#t=4m46s

Quad4_72

16th July 2010, 07:23 PM

That's pretty retarded stuff red.

metamars

17th July 2010, 03:53 AM

I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it .....

However, the one thing I would suggest that still makes "natural" sulfidation of steel a real possibility is the inclusion of chlorine in the experiment. Chlorine species would have been present in the WTC fires from the thermal degradation of the very common plastic PVC which is used in many office building items such as flooring tiles, electrical insulation, TV and computer housings, window blinds, plumbing fixtures, etc, etc.

The combustion of PVC releases copious amounts of the very corrosive gas HCl which attacks even stainless steel. HCl and Cl2, alone or in combination, are also known to have a catalytic effect on high temperature steel corrosion that would leave affected areas of steel very vulnurable to subsequent sulfide attack. The type of accelerated corrosion I am referring to has been observed in the gaseous effluent streams of industrial and municipal waste incinerators. So regrettably, before anyone claims victory on this question, I would say that the experiment needs to be repeated with PVC thrown into the mix.

Much more here (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/sulfidation-experiment-on-i-beam-doesn-t-support-nist-t391.html).

Dave Rogers

17th July 2010, 04:09 AM

First of all, it's a YouTube video. If the authors want to be taken seriously, they should write a paper, and explain their methodology in detail, including the reason why specific aspects of the experiment were chosen to be what they were.

4:36 -"So how can we tell who is not correct?"

This is the specific point at which everything goes off the rails. The video proposes two explanations, one of which is a fully realised hypothesis involving known processes and materials, and the other of which is a vague suggestion with no proposed mechanism or specific sequence of events. With the statement above, it deliberately implies that one of these explanations must be correct, therefore all that's required is the elimination of the other. It's a classic case of the false dilemma fallacy.

5:27 "...aluminum scraps, some from an airplane..."

Cute. A piece of utterly irrelevant information to give the impression that the materials have been carefully chosen.

The temperature wasn't measured beyond the observation that it melted aluminium, but the observation that the steel was glowing red suggests that the temperature was never high enough to reach the melting point of an iron-sulphur eutectic or produce significant decomposition of the gypsum. The duration was about two days, and no particular effort was made to reproduce the exact composition of the WTC7 rubble pile beyond vague guesswork. The conditions of the fire - a well-ventilated, fast-burning, open fire - were nothing like the slow-burning, diffusion-limited and well-insulated fire in the rubble pile. As an attempt to reproduce the conditions seen by the corroded beam, this was more or less worthless.

However, something useful might have been done if the steel beam had been chemically analysed to see whether any sulphur was present in the surface. Some form of chemical analysis might produce some useful information. Simply looking at the steel, observing that there weren't any holes in it, and noting that for the most part it was still sound, is a pathetic mockery of serious analysis. To conclude from this cursory inspection that "The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel and building materials did not cause any intergranular melting" (7:26) is utterly unwarranted. Truthers are, as usual, avoiding seeing anything they don't want to by not bothering to look for it properly.

From there, the video degenerates into outright lying. I note with interest at 8:30 that the narrative says "There is a reason why NIST ignored all their advice..." while the text on screen simply begins "NIST ignored all their advice..." - classic poisoning the well, while pretending innocence. And the same at 8:40 - "Perhaps NIST knew that..." is missing from the text.

Nice one at 8:50, where the glowing material coming from WTC2 is (a) identified as molten steel despite the fact that it's not hot enough to be molten steel, and (b) described as coming out of "the tower" to give the deliberate false impression that it came from WTC7, the only tower that's been discussed in the video so far. I see the iron-rich spheroids are now "iron spheroids", and it's suggested that thermite reactions can go on for days.

Oh, and RedIbis, since you're now claiming that you always admitted there was such a thing as thermal expansion and that it happens in all building fires, would you like to join me in pointing out that "a new phenomenon called thermal expansion due to an office fire" is an extraordinarily ignorant description, and quite simply wrong?

And at 9:28, the biggest lie of all: "The murder of thousands on 9/11 wasn't considered a crime, and therefore [was] never investigated as a crime". You heard it here first, folks; Operation PENTTBOM, the largest operation in the history of the FBI, never happened.

Last of all, as others have pointed out, the missing part of the video is the part where anyone demonstrates that thermate can cause erosion and thinning of steel structural members by intergranular eutectic melting. Until someone's demonstrated this, there isn't even a competing hypothesis.

Truther videos make me sick. This laughably incompetent piece of cargo cult science is no exception.

Dave

switchpoint

17th July 2010, 05:22 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

As far as I know, the NIST doesn't have a big backyard and backhoe. They are limited to things like labaratories and the scientific method.

Dave Rogers

17th July 2010, 06:22 AM

And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

It's relatively easy to carry out a poorly-constructed experiment that bears very little resemblance to the conditions it's supposed to be modelling and is virtually guaranteed to give no useful results at all because no attempt is made at analysing the final state of the system. What isn't so easy is conducting experiments that give useful and rigorous conclusions, but the truth movement has yet to find this out because they haven't tried it.

Dave

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 06:34 AM

Cl1mh4224rd

17th July 2010, 06:36 AM

/facepalm

NutCracker

17th July 2010, 06:43 AM

Delete

triforcharity

17th July 2010, 06:46 AM

An office fire or a smoldering debris pile fire do not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Sample #1, from WTC 7 was melted by:
"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur [molten iron] formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected foe melting this steel .
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2?

Show me where thermite can burn for days. I can show you one reason the pile burned for days.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

In fact, they even invented a tool for firefighters to help in a simmilar situation.

switchpoint

17th July 2010, 06:50 AM

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F

Thats one I always love to hear - "office fires".

Do "doctor's" office fires burn at different temperature than say, "lawyer's" office fires? Also, generally speaking, can the smoke plume from "office" fires be seen clearly from the space station?

Just asking questions.

GlennB

17th July 2010, 07:10 AM

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

What was witnessed was not "melting" in the normal sense of a mass phase change from solid to liquid. You've had this presented to you dozens of times, Christopher7, and in great depth. Why are you repeating the same worn-out claptrap?

Edx

17th July 2010, 07:19 AM

There is some really ridiculous truthers on the comment section, just check it out.

I cant argue on such a such a difficult to use comment section anymore.

DGM

17th July 2010, 07:40 AM

Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2?

Show me where thermite can burn for days. I can show you one reason the pile burned for days.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

In fact, they even invented a tool for firefighters to help in a simmilar situation.
You might want to search christopher7 post history before you spend much time responding to him.

Just saying. :rolleyes:

Edx

17th July 2010, 07:49 AM

Christopher thinks the WTC had a concrete core lol

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 07:51 AM

It's relatively easy to carry out a poorly-constructed experiment that bears very little resemblance to the conditions it's supposed to be modelling and is virtually guaranteed to give no useful results at all because no attempt is made at analysing the final state of the system. What isn't so easy is conducting experiments that give useful and rigorous conclusions, but the truth movement has yet to find this out because they haven't tried it.

Dave

You didn't watch the video, did you? No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments. Now you can be specific if you'd like. Here's a productive discussion of the experiment on your favorite forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/sulfidation-experiment-on-i-beam-doesn-t-support-nist-t391.html

ETA: I didn't see some of the earlier posts and Metamars' link.

DGM

17th July 2010, 07:55 AM

You didn't watch the video, did you? No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments. Now you can be specific if you'd like. Here's a productive discussion of the experiment on your favorite forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/sulfidation-experiment-on-i-beam-doesn-t-support-nist-t391.html
You didn't read his post before that where he discussed the video with time stamps?

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 08:02 AM

Oh, and RedIbis, since you're now claiming that you always admitted there was such a thing as thermal expansion and that it happens in all building fires, would you like to join me in pointing out that "a new phenomenon called thermal expansion due to an office fire" is an extraordinarily ignorant description, and quite simply wrong?

Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?

Quad4_72

17th July 2010, 08:09 AM

Cl1mh4224rd

17th July 2010, 08:26 AM

No one said the experiment was perfect [...]

The interesting thing about your weak attempt at deflecting criticism is that "not perfect" encompasses everything from "steaming pile of ****" to "off by a few hundredths on a single value".

Dave simply pointed out that the "experiment" in your video falls on the very low end of the "not perfect" scale.

What value do you see in it?

16.5

17th July 2010, 08:35 AM

The interesting thing about your weak attempt at deflecting criticism is that "not perfect" encompasses everything from "steaming pile of ****" to "off by a few hundredths on a single value".

Dave simply pointed out that the "experiment" in your video falls on the very low end of the "not perfect" scale.

What value do you see in it?

You'd think he'd be embarrassed by posting such garbage.

Hey Red, why don't you find a video that is not filled with lies?

BigAl

17th July 2010, 08:58 AM

lapman

17th July 2010, 09:35 AM

And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?
Why was this NIST's responsibility? What does it have to do with the collapse? Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?

I love the twoofer fallacy that NIST investigates crimes instead of investigating collapses and failures to recommend changes to prevent them from happening in the future.

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 09:48 AM

Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?

Yes.

lapman

17th July 2010, 09:49 AM

Yes.
Source?

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 09:49 AM

Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?

Edit.

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 09:50 AM

Source?

That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.

lapman

17th July 2010, 09:54 AM

That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.
No problem.

ETA, What is the answer to my question?

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 10:22 AM

Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2? I 'm talking about the melted beam from WTC 7.
NCSTAR 1A Pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires . . . . on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 10:33 AM

What was witnessed was not "melting" in the normal sense of a mass phase change from solid to liquid. It was a limited change from a solid to a liquid. You can play with semantics all you like but office fires or debris pile fires do not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.

Dog Town

17th July 2010, 11:20 AM

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Only in Twooferland! How is the weather there today?

TheRedWorm

17th July 2010, 11:21 AM

How did the thermate get there, Chris?

Dog Town

17th July 2010, 11:24 AM

How did the thermate get there, Chris?

Do you really, want to go there?

TheRedWorm

17th July 2010, 11:30 AM

Do you really, want to go there?

Don't really care, just bored today :D

Dog Town

17th July 2010, 11:33 AM

Don't really care, just bored today :D

Me, too. In Texas, and it's 100+, with New Orleans like humidity!:(

Quad4_72

17th July 2010, 11:47 AM

It was a limited change from a solid to a liquid. You can play with semantics all you like but office fires or debris pile fires do not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.

What steel are you referring to?

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2010, 11:56 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?

I don't think it's perfect, but I think this is a very helpful experiment. As Cole points out, whereas there may be sources for sulfur in the building materials, how did it enter the intergranular structure? And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I'd like to know what is. Besides there are shoutouts to Jones, Greening and Mackey. Enjoy.

I'm just curious how this person you cited intends to show how this corrosion took place all within the span of the seven hours the building burned and then collapsed as opposed to the several weeks/months the samples were actually located within the debris pile. I'd also be interested in how this individual intends to show that the condition of those samples represents the pre-collapse condition of the steel. Sadly, it seems he assumes everything hoping that his audience just 'nods' and agrees with everything he says because he's supposedly an "authority figure" on the subject. Is this really something that you find no faltering in?

In fact I recall he gave an excellent summary of how he thinks it takes an entire half of a building to cause the entire whole to collapse. I certainly see he has an excellent record for scientific study (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6040225&postcount=467), after all he's an excellent pupil of our famed "Heiwa"

T.A.M.

17th July 2010, 12:06 PM

yes please, I would be MOST interested to see a valid source stating that the sulfidation was a PRE-COLLAPSE reaction.

TAM:)

16.5

17th July 2010, 01:56 PM

That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.

Does anyone else think it is hilarious that Red Ibis "misread" a one word post asking for a source?

And of course never actually provided the source?

Hee hee! Hey Red, got that proof that Silverstein "made out like a bandit"?

Just kidding, we know you never actually prove anything, ever.

lapman

17th July 2010, 02:42 PM

[/FONT]Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.Wait, is it thermate or nano-thermite or rabid vorple unicorns?

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2010, 02:46 PM

Wait, is it thermate or nano-thermite or rabid vorple unicorns?

C7 doesn't know what rust is

uke2se

17th July 2010, 02:56 PM

Wait wait wait... I'm confused...

Is Christopher7 and Christophera the same person? If so, where's the rebar and concrete core crap?

DGM

17th July 2010, 03:08 PM

Wait wait wait... I'm confused...

Is Christopher7 and Christophera the same person? If so, where's the rebar and concrete core crap?
They're not the same person. The confusion is not yours.

RedIbis

17th July 2010, 03:11 PM

Does anyone else think it is hilarious that Red Ibis "misread" a one word post asking for a source?

And of course never actually provided the source?

Hee hee! Hey Red, got that proof that Silverstein "made out like a bandit"?

Just kidding, we know you never actually prove anything, ever.

I think it's hilarious that you think Post #32 is one word, and I can prove you can't add above 1.

TexasJack

17th July 2010, 03:20 PM

I think it's hilarious that you think Post #32 is one word, and I can prove you can't add above 1.

He's referring to post #34. Do you have a source yet?

Grizzly Bear

17th July 2010, 05:24 PM

Yes.
It serves me right for not reading the first page. Where might I be able to find such information which establishes that this corrosion took place pre-collapse?

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 07:25 PM

What steel are you referring to?Sample #1 is the the piece identified as being from WTC 7 in the FEMA C report.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

R.J. Lee Group Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf)

The only known source for temperatures hot enough to melt iron or steel in the fires or debris pile is some form of thermite.

Furcifer

17th July 2010, 07:30 PM

Does anyone else think it is hilarious that Red Ibis "misread" a one word post asking for a source?

No (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No)

16.5

17th July 2010, 07:38 PM

I think it's hilarious that you think Post #32 is one word, and I can prove you can't add above 1.

I think it is hilarious that you posted that bull **** to remind everyone that you had no *********** source for your latest lie. Did you think people did not notice the fact that I quoted the post you were referring to.

Lapman: Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?
Redliar: Yes.
Lapman: Source?
Redliar: That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit."

Moran.

"Originally Posted by lapman View Post
Source?
That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit."

Uh, yeah, Red. Keep posting Red, you didn't earn the title of most worthless poster on this site for nothing.

triforcharity

17th July 2010, 09:09 PM

You might want to search christopher7 post history before you spend much time responding to him.

Just saying. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, I remember him now. I had an extensive discussion with him on WTC 7 collapse progression.

Im bored, so no worries!

triforcharity

17th July 2010, 09:12 PM

It was a limited change from a solid to a liquid. You can play with semantics all you like but office fires or debris pile fires do not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.

And you can lie all you want, but the steel never melted.

triforcharity

17th July 2010, 09:14 PM

I 'm talking about the melted beam from WTC 7.
NCSTAR 1A Pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires . . . . on Floors 11 to 13 – persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Wanna try that link again? I see Life Safety Factors. Nothing about time.

triforcharity

17th July 2010, 09:18 PM

Sample #1 is the the piece identified as being from WTC 7 in the FEMA C report.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

R.J. Lee Group Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
"Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel)."
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf)

The only known source for temperatures hot enough to melt iron or steel in the fires or debris pile is some form of thermite.

Go read the rest of the R.J. Lee groups report. Then, try to understand what you have read. There are some here that can help with big words.

Anyway, show me thermite that burns for weeks. I'll wait......

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 09:47 PM

Go read the rest of the R.J. Lee groups report. Then, try to understand what you have read. There are some here that can help with big words. You are the one with a reading disorder. The R.J. Lee group report clearly states that the iron spheres resulted from iron or steel that had been melted.

It also said:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
Vaporized** and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Lead Melting point - 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html)

The FEMA C, R.J. Lee Group and the USGS reports all confirm temperatures far in excess of what can occur in an office fire or smoldering debris pile.

Quad4_72

17th July 2010, 10:12 PM

You are the one with a reading disorder. The R.J. Lee group report clearly states that the iron spheres resulted from iron or steel that had been melted.

It also said:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
Vaporized** and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Lead Melting point - 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html)

The FEMA C, R.J. Lee Group and the USGS reports all confirm temperatures far in excess of what can occur in an office fire or smoldering debris pile.

Why are you using the government as a source when you are the one accusing them of lying?

Dog Town

17th July 2010, 10:21 PM

Keep posting Red, you didn't earn the title of most worthless poster on this site for nothing.
Sadly, that would be a too many other Twoofers to mention tie, including a resurfacing poster, in this very thread!

Coincidence?:rolleyes:

Christopher7

17th July 2010, 10:35 PM

Why are you using the government as a source when you are the one accusing them of lying?Anything to avoid the point. ;-)

The data is accurate. It's the analysis and conclusions that are flawed. The failure to explain the melted beam or the molten iron/steel is malfeasance.

ElMondoHummus

17th July 2010, 11:26 PM

Ok, some details need to be provided in order to aid understanding. To start, I've seen zero legitimate research that indicates pre-collapse eutectic corrosion occurred (no, Steven Jones work doesn't count. For one, he doesn't claim sulfidation corrosion, he claims thermite melting. For two, his work isn't legit). And two papers

Banovic and Foecke, "Assessment of Structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part IV: Experimental Techniques to Assess Possible Exposure to High-Temperature Excursions", Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p42m41t753721442/) as well as
Sisson and Biederman's "Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/) (same journal)
... point at the opposite - corrosion having occurred after the collapse - as being more likely.

Sisson and Biederman merely noted that
"...preliminary experiments[5] indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."
Their point is that the sulfidation attacks are not rapid chemical reactions. Both towers collapsed within 2 hours. A 2 hour sulfidation attack isn't outside the realm of possibility given high enough temperatures, but compared to the days to weeks exposure in the rubble pile fires, it's simply more likelly to have occurred there rather than in the standing towers. Especially when the experiments indicate the need for many hours to corrode significant amounts of steel.

Banovic and Foecke made several observations related to banding and microstructure formation (I'm still studying in order to understand it), but their one observation regarding the pattern of corrosion is pretty straightforward: The corrosion on a specific exterior column indicated that it was "prone" at the time of the sulfidation attack. Given that it's a column (albeit a perimeter one), and given that its size indicates it was no higher than the 51st or 52nd floor of either tower (therefore not in the impact zones of either building and not punched horizontal by the jets), it's obvious that it was vertical prior to collapse. If it was vertical prior to the buildings collapses yet prone during the sulfidation attack, it doesn't take a genius to understand that the corrosion occured in the rubble pile. After the collapses.

There is more there than that - read the Worchester Polytechnic team's works (plural), as well as Banovic/Foecke - but I've yet to see one work that demonstrates pre-collapse eutectic erosion. In contrast, I've found at least these two that point at post-collapse sulfidation being the likely case.

------

Regarding the contining moronic, disproven proposals of thermite: No. Biederman's, Sisson's, Barnett's, and Sullivan's work fully demonstrate the top-end temperatures the eroded pieces of steel could have possibly experienced, and they do so by demonstrating the formation of certain steel phases and iron sulfide species that would be destroyed above that temperature. The corroded steel could not have exceeded 1000oC. It's definitely possible they were lower; Banovich's and Foecke's work indicates lower temperatures, albeit still above 850oC. Regardless, that is well, WELL below the temperatures that thermite reach. The characteristics of the steel's microstructure surrounding the corrosions, as well as the sulfidation layers, would simply not exist if thermite were used, because they would have been destroyed. The eroded steel negates the possibility of thermite use. That idiocy can be dropped forthwith.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 12:21 AM

Regarding the contining moronic, disproven proposals of thermite: No. Biederman's, Sisson's, Barnett's, and Sullivan's work fully demonstrate the top-end temperatures the eroded pieces of steel could have possibly experienced, and they do so by demonstrating the formation of certain steel phases and iron sulfide species that would be destroyed above that temperature. The corroded steel could not have exceeded 1000oC. It's definitely possible they were lower; Banovich's and Foecke's work indicates lower temperatures, albeit still above 850oC. Regardless, that is well, WELL below the temperatures that thermite reach. The characteristics of the steel's microstructure surrounding the corrosions, as well as the sulfidation layers, would simply not exist if thermite were used, because they would have been destroyed. The eroded steel negates the possibility of thermite use. That idiocy can be dropped forthwith.Where do they say that? Please provide URL and page numbers.

TheRedWorm

18th July 2010, 03:58 AM

Where do they say that? Please provide URL and page numbers.

How about you first show us therm*te that can burn for weeks.

T.A.M.

18th July 2010, 04:38 AM

Where do they say that? Please provide URL and page numbers.

He provided you with the links above. Beyond that, stop being so lazy and go through the article itself if you doubt he is being honest.

TAM:)

leftysergeant

18th July 2010, 05:50 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?

Well, for one thing, it was done by a self-important twit whose IQ is clearly twenty points (minimum) lower than what he thinks it is.

He added no super-heated water vapor or battery acid to the mix.

The little snot also mistook welding fume for thermite residue. There is no thermite residue on any of the steel photographed, nor did any of the cops, fire fighters or iron workers report finding any such residue in the pile.

So, in summary, it all came out of a sociopath's underwear.

RedIbis

18th July 2010, 05:57 AM

Well, for one thing, it was done by a self-important twit whose IQ is clearly twenty points (minimum) lower than what he thinks it is.

He added no super-heated water vapor or battery acid to the mix.

The little snot also mistook welding fume for thermite residue. There is no thermite residue on any of the steel photographed, nor did any of the cops, fire fighters or iron workers report finding any such residue in the pile.

So, in summary, it all came out of a sociopath's underwear.

That's an interesting analysis, why the ad homs against him? I didn't get any kind of attitude from his presentation.

RedIbis

18th July 2010, 05:59 AM

Moran.

I think this misspeaks for itself.

leftysergeant

18th July 2010, 06:20 AM

That's an interesting analysis, why the ad homs against him? I didn't get any kind of attitude from his presentation.

We've been over that superstitious crap dozens of times in the last nine years. He hasn't been paying attention, and he is addressing issues far outside his area of expertise.

It is clear from examining the acid-etched steel that it played no part in the collapse mechanics because it is still mostly flat, except for the curled edges. Anyone who has ever etched metal with acid would recognize this as an effect of long-term exposure to fuming acid of some sort. The presence of pyrites and metalic copper intergranularly indicates that it was sulphuric acid.

The doofus has no clue what thermite damage even looks like, and wants us to accept that it was a possibility.

He still needs to show us some thermite residue before I will refer to him in terms which do not suggest that he suffers a serious mental deficiency.

triforcharity

18th July 2010, 06:25 AM

Where do they say that? Please provide URL and page numbers.

Read the papers. He cited them. Be forewarned, you may have to pony up some dough.

Justin39640

18th July 2010, 07:10 AM

Why are you using the government as a source when you are the one accusing them of lying?

I've been lurking on this one for a day or so... Is it really all that shocking? lol

Chris...
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3919/dontgetitn.jpg

16.5

18th July 2010, 07:45 AM

I think this misspeaks for itself.

Welcome to the internet, Red. Try the googles, Red, you might learn something.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans

Anyway, you'll do anything to avoid admitting you lied about having a source (and proving that "Silverstein made out like a bandit.")?

Wow.

WildCat

18th July 2010, 08:04 AM

It serves me right for not reading the first page. Where might I be able to find such information which establishes that this corrosion took place pre-collapse?
lol! RedIbis accidentally made a claim!

RedIbis

18th July 2010, 08:05 AM

Welcome to the internet, Red. Try the googles, Red, you might learn something.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans

No need to out yourself on an internet forum.

grandmastershek

18th July 2010, 09:25 AM

The only known source for temperatures hot enough to melt iron or steel in the fires or debris pile is some form of thermite.

if you say it enough it will become true!

16.5

18th July 2010, 09:31 AM

No need to out yourself on an internet forum.

Why not, Red. You did. You outed yourself as a pathetic liar, who has been busted time after time after time on this website.

Aren't you embarrassed that a one word response "Source?" destroyed you in this thread?

"oh, I misread a one word post."

How ridiculous. Marvelous!

Grizzly Bear

18th July 2010, 11:02 AM

lol! RedIbis accidentally made a claim!

I wonder if he will accidentally posts a source :O

Oystein

18th July 2010, 12:03 PM

Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?

I marked the important word for you.

You are evadinng Dave's question, which was: Do you agree that the claim in the video, that thermal expansion in a building fire is a new phenomenon, is plain WRONG?

There is not much sense in discussing all the things that authors of a youtube video "maybe" had in mind. What matters is what they say outright. Because that video is seen by many folks without our background knowledge. To THEM, something entirely false has been said, and you canÄt duscuss that away. "Maybe" they were "merely" sloppy, but just as "maybe" they were deliberately misrepresenting Sunder's opinion (read: lying).

Moving goal posts much, by the way, from discussing the video to discussing Sunder.

Quad4_72

18th July 2010, 01:04 PM

Anything to avoid the point. ;-)

The data is accurate. It's the analysis and conclusions that are flawed. The failure to explain the melted beam or the molten iron/steel is malfeasance.

So are they in on it? If they are, why would they publish data that is evidence of thermite?

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 03:19 PM

How about you first show us therm*te that can burn for weeks.To avoid what we do know you ask for something you know does not exist.

There is no other explanation for the melted beam and the microscopic iron spheres.

DGM

18th July 2010, 03:22 PM

.

There is no other explanation for the melted beam and the microscopic iron spheres.
Yes there is, and it's been posted in this thread. The fact you don't want to acknowledge it is not our problem.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 03:49 PM

He provided you with the links above. Beyond that, stop being so lazy and go through the article itself if you doubt he is being honest.

TAM:)The links just show an intro page. There is nothing about temperatures or the corrosion precluding thermite. That is just conjecture by ElMondoHummus.

DGM

18th July 2010, 04:16 PM

The links just show an intro page. There is nothing about temperatures or the corrosion precluding thermite. That is just conjecture by ElMondoHummus.
The "intro page" has the link to the journal articles. If you don't subscribe you'll have to pay for it or (gasp) visit your local university and ask to view it there.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 04:17 PM

There is no other explanation for the melted beam and the microscopic iron spheres.
Yes there is, and it's been posted in this thread. No so. Post your explanation for fires hot enough to melt iron/steel [2800o-2750oF] and vaporize lead [3182oF].

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 04:22 PM

The "intro page" has the link to the journal articles. If you don't subscribe you'll have to pay for it or (gasp) visit your local university and ask to view it there.The person making a claim must provide a source. At very least the specific quotes and page numbers from the article should be posted. EMH's claim is unfounded. Saying "Go look for it" doesn't cut it. Put up or shut up.

DGM

18th July 2010, 04:31 PM

No so. Post your explanation for fires hot enough to melt iron/steel [2800o-2750oF] and vaporize lead [3182oF].
Been there, done that! It's 2010. This is old news

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 05:03 PM

Been there, done that! It's 2010. This is old newsYou have nothing so you just claim the information exists.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 05:14 PM

Post your explanation for fires hot enough to melt iron/steel [2800o-2750oF] and vaporize lead [3182oF].

There weren't any.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 05:30 PM

There weren't any.:D

R J Lee - spheres - high temp
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf)

Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).

Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Lead Melting point - 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html)

Carlos

18th July 2010, 05:33 PM

Where is the proof thermite can demolish a building?

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 05:36 PM

R J Lee - spheres - high temp
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf)

Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).

Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Lead Melting point - 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html)

Iron microspheres also come from vehicle brake pads, gas powered yard tools and the cutting of steel girders by rescue/cleanup personnel.

There weren't any heat sources capable of melting iron and vaporising lead. Sorry.

Cl1mh4224rd

18th July 2010, 05:46 PM

if you say it enough it will become true!

The problem is that it is already true... to him.

T.A.M.

18th July 2010, 05:50 PM

The person making a claim must provide a source. At very least the specific quotes and page numbers from the article should be posted. EMH's claim is unfounded. Saying "Go look for it" doesn't cut it. Put up or shut up.

He provided what was needed. He is not required to provide you an illegal copy of a paper that requires membership and/or fee to view. That is up to you, if you wish to verify his source...sorry. The paper is there...if you doubt the validity of his quotes, then check the paper yourself...the fee is your responsibility.

TAM:)

Reactor drone

18th July 2010, 05:59 PM

:D

R J Lee - spheres - high temp
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf (http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphol ogy.Final.pdf)

Pg 17 [pdf pg 21]
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).

Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Lead Melting point - 622oF [328oC]
Boiling point - Vaporization 3182oF [1,750oC]
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_392.html)

Are you absolutely certain that lead can only form vapours above when it's above its boiling point? Water, for instance, vapourises from the surface of a body of water at consideraby less than its boiling point and I'm pretty sure you'll get fuming and vapourisation from molten lead in a similar way.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 06:22 PM

triforcharity

18th July 2010, 06:37 PM

The person making a claim must provide a source. At very least the specific quotes and page numbers from the article should be posted. EMH's claim is unfounded. Saying "Go look for it" doesn't cut it. Put up or shut up.

No see, here is what YOU don't understand. Some of those articles charge a fee to view them. THat is how the journal gets paid. They charge the reader. Unlike Bentham which charges the publisher, this is how a respectable journal operates.

I have read it in it's entirety. However, I teach at a college, and I have access to it. However, I am not going to put it on an open access point, as that is stealing from the journal.

Now, pony up the $10, and read the paper in it's entirety. If you need help, there are people here that can help you understand it.

Now, go do your research and stop being a typical lazy truther.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 06:44 PM

Iron microspheres also come from vehicle brake pads, gas powered yard tools and the cutting of steel girders by rescue/cleanup personnel.Show sources please.

The background dust in the R.J. Lee study contained about .04% iron spheres. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron spheres. Samples were taken from inside and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building. The iron spheres are NOT from normal sources of cutting torches.

There weren't any heat sources capable of melting iron and vaporising lead. Sorry.Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.

Quad4_72

18th July 2010, 06:50 PM

Show sources please.

The background dust in the R.J. Lee study contained about .04% iron spheres. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron spheres. Samples were taken from inside and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building. The iron spheres are NOT from normal sources of cutting torches.

Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.

I am still curious Christopher7, are the people who made the report you are quoting in on it? You say the data is correct but the findings are not. So are you suggesting the government published a report incriminating themselves?

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 07:18 PM

Show sources please.

It's common knowledge.

The background dust in the R.J. Lee study contained about .04% iron spheres. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron spheres. Samples were taken from inside and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building. The iron spheres are NOT from normal sources of cutting torches.

No... the abundance of motor vehicle traffic in lower Manhattan and heavy use of torches and saws at the cleanup site is sufficient to explain the metallic microspheres found in the dust.

Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.

Yes, as has already been pointed out to you. However, what you have failed (or refused)to show is evidence that is unique to what you believe occurred or cannot be accounted for in the "official" version of that days events.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 07:19 PM

Now, pony up the $10, and read the paper in it's entirety.

He won't because he doesn't care.

triforcharity

18th July 2010, 07:26 PM

He won't because he doesn't care.

Or maybe because he is out of his league, as he is on most things that he tries to argue.

I never did find out what his qualifications were to tell the R.J. Lee group they were wrong......

leftysergeant

18th July 2010, 07:49 PM

No so. Post your explanation for fires hot enough to melt iron/steel [2800o-2750oF]...

Why do we need toexplain it? It didn't happen. No scientist is saying that it did. The Swiss cheese steel was not thermally melted. It was attacked by acid. ...and vaporize lead [3182oF]. Lead vaporizes when a lead-acid battery sparks. I don't even see lead as a significant part of the dust samples. Pointless to include that lame assertion in an otherwise struggling argument.

leftysergeant

18th July 2010, 07:58 PM

Show sources please.

The background dust in the R.J. Lee study contained about .04% iron spheres. The WTC dust contained 5.87% iron spheres. Samples were taken from inside and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building. The iron spheres are NOT from normal sources of cutting torches.

Of course it wasn't all from cutting torches. It was from WELDING torches. Tons of steel was melted by welding torches to build the towers. This produces iron sphereules like those found in the dust samples. They do not normally become a part of the background dust because massive amounts of this dust cling to the steel structures and never again move until the whole thing comes down.

Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.

Prove it. Where was the fire that hot?

Cl1mh4224rd

18th July 2010, 08:21 PM

I am still curious Christopher7, are the people who made the report you are quoting in on it? You say the data is correct but the findings are not. So are you suggesting the government published a report incriminating themselves?

I have a belief that conspiracy theorists need the alleged perpetrators to be more stupid than the conspiracy theorists themselves; otherwise, the conspiracy theorists would never be able to figure anything out.

Obviously, considering how stupid conspiracy theorists are in general, you get a comically retarded villain.

Sword_Of_Truth

18th July 2010, 09:22 PM

Prove it. Where was the fire that hot?

Nowhere.

Large amounts of molten (or once molten) steel or iron would have been found if there was.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 09:52 PM

Iron microspheres also come from vehicle brake pads, gas powered yard tools and the cutting of steel girders by rescue/cleanup personnel.
Show sources please.
It's common knowledge.No it isn't. Show your source or stop making that claim.

No... the abundance of motor vehicle traffic in lower Manhattan and heavy use of torches and saws at the cleanup site is sufficient to explain the metallic microspheres found in the dust.You are making stuff up. Provide a source or stop making that claim.

The R.J. Lee report showed that the normal background dust contained .04% iron spheres. The samples from the roof and interior of the Bankers Trust had 5.87% iron spheres. The dust was from the dust clouds from WTC 1 and 2 that enveloped lower Manhattan on 9/11. There is no proof that cutting torches create an abundance of microspheres nor is has anyone shown a mechanism for them [if they exist] to be in the interior or the roof of the Bankers Trust building. It's pure speculation.

Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.
Yes, as has already been pointed out to you. However, what you have failed (or refused)to show is evidence that is unique to what you believe occurred or cannot be accounted for in the "official" version of that days events.I am only establishing that there is proof of temperatures far in excess of what can occur in office or debris pile fires.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 09:57 PM

I have a belief that conspiracy theorists need the alleged perpetrators to be more stupid than the conspiracy theorists themselves; otherwise, the conspiracy theorists would never be able to figure anything out.

Obviously, considering how stupid conspiracy theorists are in general, you get a comically retarded villain.If you believe OBL and 19 crazy guys did it, then you are a stupid conspiracy theorist.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 10:31 PM

Of course it wasn't all from cutting torches. It was from WELDING torches. Tons of steel was melted by welding torches to build the towers.Tons? Source?

This produces iron sphereules like those found in the dust samples. Source?

They do not normally become a part of the background dust because massive amounts of this dust cling to the steel structures and never again move until the whole thing comes down.Massive amounts? <;-) Source?

You are making stuff up in a desperate attempt to discount the extremely elevated amount of iron microspheres found it the WTC dust. Normal is .04% and the WTC dust averages 5.87%.

Iron WAS melted and lead WAS vaporized so there WAS a source.
Prove it. Where was the fire that hot? The "fire" was not that hot. Something other than the fire melted the iron and vaporized the lead.

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 11:39 PM

Post your explanation for fires hot enough to melt iron/steel [2800o-2750oF]
Why do we need toexplain it? It didn't happen. No scientist is saying that it did.Acyually, the USGS and the R.J. Lee Group confirm the existence of these temperatures.
What part of DURING don't you understand?
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.

The Swiss cheese steel was not thermally melted. It was attacked by acid. Source?

Lead vaporizes when a lead-acid battery sparks. I don't even see lead as a significant part of the dust samples. Pg 3
50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead.

Pg 7
Analyte - Units - WTC - Background
. . . . . . . . . . . .- Dust - Building dust
Lead - (ug/ft2) - 424 - 0.325

Reactor drone

18th July 2010, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant
Of course it wasn't all from cutting torches. It was from WELDING torches. Tons of steel was melted by welding torches to build the towers.

Tons? Source?

Here for example,

NCSTAR 1-3 chapter 4.2.5 page 24 (72 of the pdf)

Higher strength SMA electrodes (ASTM A 316 until 1969, then AWS A 5.5-69) were also permitted by the contract. More than 48,000 lb (22,000 kg) of electrodes were used in each of the towers (welding design 1970b).

Christopher7

18th July 2010, 11:55 PM

Here for example,
NCSTAR 1-3 chapter 4.2.5 page 24 (72 of the pdf)I have done some arc welding. The electrodes create splatter but do they create iron microspheres? If so, how much?
I doubt this question has ever been asked until now and therefore there is NO scientific data to support this speculation.

DGM

19th July 2010, 12:04 AM

I have done some arc welding. The electrodes create splatter but do they create iron microspheres? If so, how much?
I doubt this question has ever been asked until now and therefore there is NO scientific data to support this speculation.
Source? Back-up that statement or retract.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 12:08 AM

No it isn't. Show your source or stop making that claim.

You are making stuff up. Provide a source or stop making that claim.

It is common knowledge, I'm afraid. Anything that involves metal grinding ion metal or the melting of metal will produce particles of varying sizes including microscopic.

It's a no-brainer (which would explain why you have a hard time understanding it).

The R.J. Lee report showed that the normal background dust contained .04% iron spheres.

So metallic microspheres do have normal sources? Can I quote you on that? I have a moron asking for a source for something that should be obvious. :P

There is no proof that cutting torches create an abundance of microspheres

The the hot glowing thingy on the end of a welding torch (called a "flame") cuts metal, or joins it together by melting it.

I suppose you want a source for that? :P

nor is has anyone shown a mechanism for them [if they exist] to be in the interior or the roof of the Bankers Trust building. It's pure speculation.

So it's ok for you but not for us?

Why are all truthers such giant flaming hypocrites?

I am only establishing that there is proof of temperatures far in excess of what can occur in office or debris pile fires.

No... you aren't.

Not even close.

Everything you have pointed out is readily explainable by means other than 10,000 republican ninjews with magic thermite demo packs rushing into burning buildings.

I told you before you need to come up with something that is either unique to your preferred scenario or that cannot be explained under the reality-based version of 9/11.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 12:10 AM

Acyually, the USGS and the R.J. Lee Group confirm the existence of these temperatures.
What part of DURING don't you understand?
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.

If those temperatures existed in the twin towers or the debris pile, large amounts of molten iron or steel would have been found.

But there wasn't any.

Too bad, so sad, go directly to jail, do not pass "GO", do not collect 200$, buh-bye.

DGM

19th July 2010, 12:15 AM

Chris7:
Based on how many microspheres were found how much thermite was used? An educated guess will do. :D

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 12:56 AM

It is common knowledge, I'm afraid. Anything that involves metal grinding ion metal or the melting of metal will produce particles of varying sizes including microscopic. Gringing does not produce iron microspheres. Only melting iron and then turning it into an aerosol of very tiny droplets [one quarter the width of a human hair] with explosives can produce the abundance of iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

There is no proof that cutting torches create an abundance of microspheresThe the how glowing thingy on the end of a welding torch (called a "flame") cuts metal, or joins it together by melting it.Irrelevant to the question of MICROSPHERES.

I am only establishing that there is proof of temperatures far in excess of what can occur in office or debris pile fires. No... you aren't.Denial
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC event.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 01:30 AM

Gringing does not produce iron microspheres.

Yes it does.

Only melting iron and then turning it into an aerosol of very tiny droplets [one quarter the width of a human hair]

Blowtorches do that.

Like the kind used in cutting up wreckage after a major collapse.

with explosives can produce the abundance of iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

There were no explosives in the WTC. If there were, the dogs would have found them, and the signatures would have showed up on seismographs.

Irrelevant to the question of MICROSPHERES.

The microspheres are solidified droplets. The droplets form when a substance is turned to liquid (like what a welding torch does to metal) (this is common knowledge too).

Denial
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC event.

It happens in vehicle brake pads and welding torches too.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 01:32 AM

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 02:01 AM

Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?

If that's a verbatim quote, then it's extremely poorly worded. Sunder may have meant that thermal expansion was a new member of the set of phenomena that can cause structural collapse - I find it hard to believe that he honestly believed that thermal expansion was a new phenomenon - but if so, he expressed himself exceedingly badly.

Dave

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 02:04 AM

You didn't watch the video, did you?

You may have nopticed that I referred to some specific statements by timestamp, a bit tricky to do without watching it.

No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments.

No, we're always pointing out that truthers don't do competently designed experiments. Incompetently designed experiments, like this one, are quite commonplace.

Now you can be specific if you'd like.

More specific than I already have been? Go back and read my first post in this thread.

Dave

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 02:06 AM

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.

Wrong. Thermate is not a known explanation for the melted beam. If you reject fire, you'll need a third explanation, because there is no evidence that thermate is capable of producing the effects seen.

Dave

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:13 AM

C7, if you are seriously claiming that melting or grinding metals do not produce microspheres, then that is what is called an "extraordinary claim". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.You are the one claiming grinding produces microspheres. You provide the scientific evidence that it does.
Then explain how the spheres came to be in the dust inside on the roof of a building several hundred feet away. The WTC dust was propelled into Bankers Trust in the billowing clouds the collapses made. Cutting done later, even if it produced iron microspheres, they would not have gone far like the ones in the fast moving collapse dust clouds. The USGS took samples from 35 places around lower Manhattan and the iron spheres were ubiquitous.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:18 AM

Wrong. Thermate is not a known explanation for the melted beam.It is known that thermite melts steel.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 02:24 AM

You are the one claiming grinding produces microspheres. You provide the scientific evidence that it does.

It's common knowledge.

But if you want to turn the science of metallurgy on its head because your bigoted paranoid kookery doesn't work with out, then by all means... make your case.

Then explain how the spheres came to be in the dust inside on the roof of a building several hundred feet away. The WTC dust was propelled into Bankers Trust in the billowing clouds the collapses made. Cutting done later, even if it produced iron microspheres, they would not have gone far like the ones in the fast moving collapse dust clouds. The USGS took samples from 35 places around lower Manhattan and the iron spheres were ubiquitous.

Metal grinding on metal produces microspheres. The airplane impacts and the collapses themselves would have produced enormous amounts of them.

BigAl

19th July 2010, 02:24 AM

It is known that thermite melts steel.

And there was no steel recovered st WTC that had ever been melted.

The steel sample we are discussing was eroded by chemical processes, not by melting.

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 02:27 AM

It is known that thermite melts steel.

It is not known that thermate corrodes steel by intergranular eutectic melting; such a process has never been demonstrated. Evidence suggests that the temperatures created by thermate are too high for this phenomenon to occur, as it requires that the steel should not be melted except at the points of corrosive attack. Therefore, unless and until it has been demonstrated that thermate can cause this specific effect, it is not a viable explanation for it.

Dave

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:34 AM

It's common knowledge. Merry-go-round ;-)

Metal grinding on metal produces microspheres. The airplane impacts and the collapses themselves would have produced enormous amounts of them.Supposition.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:46 AM

And there was no steel recovered st WTC that had ever been melted.

The steel sample we are discussing was eroded by chemical processes, not by melting.You are playing with semantics.
FEMA C pg 5
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel. liqueify = melted

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:00 AM

He provided what was needed. He is not required to provide you an illegal copy of a paper that requires membership and/or fee to view. That is up to you, if you wish to verify his source...sorry. The paper is there...if you doubt the validity of his quotes, then check the paper yourself...the fee is your responsibility.

TAM:)Actually, he didn't quote anybody. He just speculated.
"The corroded steel could not have exceeded 1000oC. It's definitely possible they were lower; Banovich's and Foecke's work indicates lower temperatures, albeit still above 850oC. Regardless, that is well, WELL below the temperatures that thermite reach. The characteristics of the steel's microstructure surrounding the corrosions, as well as the sulfidation layers, would simply not exist if thermite were used, because they would have been destroyed."

This is assuming the thermite is applied directly to the beam. Thermate residue [molten iron at much less than its starting temperature of 4,500 degrees F] could have dripped on the beam while it was in the debris pile and slowly eroded it. This is a possibility.

We cannot possibly know exactly how the beam came to be as it now is.
What we do know:
We know thermite melts steel.
We know of nothing else that could have melted the beam.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:20 AM

Merry-go-round ;-)

When substances become liquid, droplets form. This is grade-school stuff.

You're the one rotating here.

Supposition.

No. That's your turf, truther.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:22 AM

You are playing with semantics.
FEMA C pg 5
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel. liqueify = melted

Steel melts at 2900F. The steel cannot have melted since by your own admission the temperature was insifficient.

Ergo, you have shot yourself in the foot.

Smooth move, Ex-Lax™. What do you do for an encore? Gargle peanut butter?

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:24 AM

Actually, he didn't quote anybody. He just speculated.

The truther is whining about speculation.

Apparently it's only ok when they do it.

Hypocrite.

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 03:30 AM

Thermate residue [molten iron at much less than its starting temperature of 4,500 degrees F] could have dripped on the beam while it was in the debris pile and slowly eroded it. This is a possibility.

No, it isn't. Drops of molten iron would give rise to localised heating rather than the general heating to between 850 and 1000ºC that was actually seen, and more importantly would have solidified on the beam leaving very obvious structures that were not, in fact, observed.

What we do know:
We know thermite melts steel.
We know of nothing else that could have melted the beam.

No. What we do know is that the beam was exposed to temperatures between 850 and 1000ºC for very long (several days) periods of time. We know that a smouldering, diffusion-limited fire in well-insulated conditions is capable of achieving this temperature and maintaining it for this period of time. We know, also, that thermite is incapable of maintaining a steady temperature in this range, or for maintaining any elevated temperature at all over this time period. Therefore, we can be absolutely certain that these elevated temperatures were not caused by thermite, and it is reasonable to examine hypotheses based on their cause being the known fires in the rubble pile.

Dave

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:37 AM

Steel melts at 2900F.Actually it's ~2750oF

The steel cannot have melted since by your own admission the temperature was insifficient.Something other than the fires melted the steel. The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

Lead was VAPORIZED during the event because the lead then condensed on fibers. That means; something heated it to 3182oF
The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:44 AM

Something other than the fires melted the steel.

The steel didn't melt. Can't you read?

The only known possibility is some form of thermite.

Or it could have been a eutectic reaction.

Lead was VAPORIZED during the event because the lead then condensed on fibers. That means; something heated it to 3182oF

Leftysergeant already covered this.

The only known possibility to 9/11 truthers is some form of thermite.

Corrected free of charge. It was good of you to come here where those who know far more than you do (which isn't actually hard) could provide you the details you are missing.

Captain_Swoop

19th July 2010, 03:54 AM

Cutting torches melt steel. Grinding melts steel. when it cools it forms micro spheres. This is very basic stuff. Why don't you know this?

How basic do you want people to go to provide sources for their statements?

Steel is made from iron? Iron is extracted from an ore by a smelting process?
Ore is mined from the ground?

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:57 AM

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 04:25 AM

No, it isn't. Drops of molten iron would give rise to localised heating rather than the general heating to between 850 and 1000ºC that was actually seen, and more importantly would have solidified on the beam leaving very obvious structures that were not, in fact, observed.Once again you are speculating and talking as if you knew all there was to know.

What we do know is that the beam was exposed to temperatures between 850 and 1000ºC for very long (several days) periods of time. How do we know that? That's someone's speculation.

We know that a smouldering, diffusion-limited fire in well-insulated conditions is capable of achieving this temperature and maintaining it for this period of time.BS!
Well ventilated fires burn at those temperatures [850 - 1000ºC/1560 - 1800oF]. Smoldering debris pile fires are oxygen starved and burn at much lower temperatures.

We know, also, that thermite is incapable of maintaining a steady temperature in this range, or for maintaining any elevated temperature at all over this time period.Thermite starts at 4500oF. In a well insulated situation it would cool slowly. You are NOT qualified to say how long thermite would stay hot.

Therefore, we can be absolutely certain that these elevated temperatures were not caused by thermite No, you don't know the facts nor do you know the conditions in the rubble pile.

You keep avoiding the obvious; thermite is the only known explanation for the melted beam, the iron spheres and the vaporized lead. Your list of "It can't be because" reasons notwithstanding.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 04:26 AM

The steel didn't melt. Can't you read?What part of "liquify" don't you understand?

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 04:28 AM

Cutting torches melt steel. Grinding melts steel. when it cools it forms micro spheres. Source?

Other than your mouth. ;-)

Oystein

19th July 2010, 04:58 AM

What part of "liquify" don't you understand?

What makes you so sure that "liquify" means "melt"?

"Melting, or fusion, is a physical process that results in the phase change of a substance from a solid to a liquid. The internal energy of a substance is increased, typically by the application of heat or pressure, resulting in a rise of its temperature to the melting point, at which the rigid ordering of molecular entities in the solid breaks down to a less-ordered state and the solid liquefies. An object that has melted completely is molten." (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting))

The process that FEMA is describing intimately involves chemical reactions, namely corrosion: Heated steel corrodes in the presence of high temperatures and certain chemicals (sulfur, water vapor); the resulting chemicals or compounds may be liquid at that temperature, without having melted at any time - they come out of the chemical process in liquid form. It was not "melting" because it wasn't the same chemical or compound that was solid before the reaction, it was a different chemical or compound.

Oystein

19th July 2010, 05:09 AM

Source?

Other than your mouth. ;-)

This abstract (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5B-47WTS7S-3M&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=27318fe181be6a2a9426a9b737841c72) seems to hint that metallic microspheres form during certain kinds of wear.

Dave Rogers

19th July 2010, 05:24 AM

You keep avoiding the obvious; thermite is the only known explanation for the melted beam, the iron spheres and the vaporized lead. Your list of "It can't be because" reasons notwithstanding.

The list of "It can't be because" is all that matters; thermite cannot explain the corroded beam. Since it's an impossible explanation, it needs no further consideration.

If you want to dispute that, show me one piece of evidence that thermite can erode a steel beam to a fraction of its original thickness, leaving sharp edges. There is nothing to suggest that this is even possible, and until you've shown it to be so you're just making up stories.

Dave

Myriad

19th July 2010, 06:58 AM

The evidence that grinding steel produces iron-rich microspheres is pretty obvious. You can see the microspheres coming from the grinding surfaces, usually in great numbers. You can see them from a distance. They are clearly visible in almost any photograph of grinding metal.

The reason they are so easy to see is that they react with air and self-heat to high temperatures (yes, temperatures high enough to melt them), causing them to incandesce for a short period. Of course, during that interval most people don't call them "iron-rich microspheres," they call them "sparks."

When they cool down, they don't disappear, they just get much harder to see. They usually end up on the shop floor near the grinder, where they pile up over time. In a building under construction they would pile up on whatever surfaces were underneath at the time, and in any available crevice.

Iron-rich microspheres are also produced from wood flames. The source is ferritin protein complexes within the wood, containing ferrihydrate molecules that condense exothermically into droplets within the hot reducing environment of the flame. At no point is the melting of bulk iron required. (Iron microspheres in coal ash probably come from the same process.)

Burn some wood, stir a strong magnet through the ashes, look at the magnet through a microscope and tell me what you find.

Respectfully,
Myriad

leftysergeant

19th July 2010, 07:00 AM

This is assuming the thermite is applied directly to the beam. Thermate residue [molten iron at much less than its starting temperature of 4,500 degrees F] could have dripped on the beam while it was in the debris pile and slowly eroded it. This is a possibility.

No.

We know of nothing else that could have melted the beam.

Bull flopsd. Those of us who have etched metals with acids know that sulphuric acid would do that. We know that there was sulphuric acid in the towers prior to collapse, and that more would have been formed in the hot-wet environment to which the steel was exposed.

Do stop and figure out what other items would be in the pile before you post any more baseless garbage.

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 07:11 AM

Gringing does not produce iron microspheres. Only melting iron and then turning it into an aerosol of very tiny droplets [one quarter the width of a human hair] with explosives can produce the abundance of iron microspheres found in the WTC dust.

Wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=143our0kDAs

What do you think all those sparks are?

Also, here is an article on brake dust.
http://www.ebcbrakes.com/automotive_product_news/brakes_dust.shtml

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 07:14 AM

It is known that thermite melts steel.

Yes, in VERY SMALL QUANTITIES. Wanna show me thermite cutting a steel column? I'll wait.....

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 07:20 AM

BS!
Well ventilated fires burn at those temperatures [850 - 1000ºC/1560 - 1800oF]. Smoldering debris pile fires are oxygen starved and burn at much lower temperatures.

Really? How do you know this? Can you provide a cite and source? Also, show me that the fires in the piles were oxygen starved.

I'll wait.

funk de fino

19th July 2010, 08:00 AM

It is known that thermite melts steel.

How many pieces of steel displayed these characteristics?

funk de fino

19th July 2010, 08:04 AM

I still find it hilarious that not one truther even understands what eutectic means. Or epic fail threads like this would not be started. Then again I would not be able to chuckle at RedIbis again.

It seemes to have brought back a particularly obstinate troll however. See my sig.

16.5

19th July 2010, 09:18 AM

grandmastershek

19th July 2010, 10:28 AM

It is known that thermite melts steel.

goal post move noted

grandmastershek

19th July 2010, 10:39 AM

Yes, in VERY SMALL QUANTITIES. Wanna show me thermite cutting a steel column? I'll wait.....

weren't they supposed to do that at Burning Man?

oh...right.

WildCat

19th July 2010, 10:40 AM

Before this thread becomes too "Realistice,"

I'll just ask whether Red ever supported his claim, or whether he is going to leave that huge steaming load of "I misread your one word post" as his swan song.
RedIbis doesn't make claims... he insinuates, thus leaving a back door to escape through when he is backed into a corner.

beachnut

19th July 2010, 10:53 AM

...

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
Due to ignorance you have lied, and added your own moronic delusion of thermate. There were no thermate products found with the steel. Magic thermate. lol, Jones is insane and made up the thermite delusion; what is your excuse for making up lies?

Reason # 1,000,057 to go to college; to learn what this means!!!
"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000°C (1,800°F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
LOL, the failed thermite/themate tripe is classic paranoid conspiracy theorists, making statements based on ignorance and bias.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 12:41 PM

FLY ASH
http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,14;journal,14,17;linkingpublication results,1:112378,1

DUE TO GRINDING
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5B-47WTS7S-3M&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F1979&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1405187708&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5cda8b93e684064ea215ee9548581a43

For the love of god.

TAM:)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 01:20 PM

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 01:24 PM

What makes you so sure that "liquify" means "melt"?liquefy: become or make liquid

Captain_Swoop

19th July 2010, 01:24 PM

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

like welding, grinding, flame cutting etc.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 01:39 PM

like welding, grinding, flame cutting etc.The dust samples from the interior and roof of the Bankers Trust building was deposited by the dust clouds from the collapses of the towers. Any microspheres from the "cleanup" would not have been spread as the WTC collapse dust was.

The R.J. Lee Group said: "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

ETA:"Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust."

You think you know more about it than they do, you do not. You are in denial and you are groping for alternate explanations. The iron spheres in the WTC dust were also in the 35 samples gathered by the USGS a few days after the event.

DGM

19th July 2010, 01:45 PM

Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the amount of micro-spheres you claim are in the dust? A guess of how many tons will suffice. :rolleyes:

BTW: Do you plan to show someday that "thermite" could actually do what you say it can?

Comsat Angel

19th July 2010, 01:47 PM

You Failed at:

http://www.youtube.

.

Real scientists do not conduct their research experimentation on Youtube

Next.

(Oh - how's that narrative coming, Red?)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 01:53 PM

Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the amount of micro-spheres you claim are in the dust? A guess of how many tons will suffice.I don't know.

This subject shift is a denial tactic. The point here is the iron spheres and the vaporized lead occurred during the 9/11 event.

DGM

19th July 2010, 02:03 PM

So? Why do you attribute it to "thermite" with absolutely no evidence to support it? Science has described a method to explain this phenomenon, you have not!

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:05 PM

You Failed at:

Real scientists do not conduct their research experimentation on Youtube

Next.

(Oh - how's that narrative coming, Red?)Jon Cole put "The sulfur is from the drywall" disinformation to rest. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support that ridiculous hypothesis. Drywall is used for fireproofing. The claim that the sulfur in drywall was released from its chemical bonds in the fire is baseless and false.

Captain_Swoop

19th July 2010, 02:20 PM

The dust samples from the interior and roof of the Bankers Trust building was deposited by the dust clouds from the collapses of the towers. Any microspheres from the "cleanup" would not have been spread as the WTC collapse dust was.

The R.J. Lee Group said: "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

ETA:"Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust."

You think you know more about it than they do, you do not. You are in denial and you are groping for alternate explanations. The iron spheres in the WTC dust were also in the 35 samples gathered by the USGS a few days after the event.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. it's up to you to provide the support for the claim. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on to us. We don't have to give an affermative rebuttal. If you want your suggestion to be taken seriously you need to provide some support.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:22 PM

So? Why do you attribute it to "thermite" with absolutely no evidence to support it? Science has described a method to explain this phenomenon, you have not!The temperatures that vaporized lead can only be explained by thermite. Thermite was found in the WTC dust and your denial of this is just denial. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 02:24 PM

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. it's up to you to provide the support for the claim. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on to us. We don't have to give an affermative rebuttal. If you want your suggestion to be taken seriously you need to provide some support.I am quoting scientific reports. You are denying them.

DGM

19th July 2010, 02:29 PM

Captain_Swoop

19th July 2010, 02:34 PM

I am quoting scientific reports. You are denying them.

You claim that thermite was used in large quantities to demolish a building in a manner that has never been seen before and where there is no evidence of thermite.

I think you are making extraordinary claims. So far all I have seen is you playing with your 'window dressing' of iron microspheres but the shop itself seems empty.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 03:10 PM

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

yes...that is right...high temperatures...melted metal....

What is your point? is anyone saying there is a room temperature source of iron microspheres in the remains?

No, they are merely pointing out that IRON MICROSPHERES does not ONLY EQUAL Thermite.

Come on man, don't be a stonehead.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 03:14 PM

I don't know.

This subject shift is a denial tactic. The point here is the iron spheres and the vaporized lead occurred during the 9/11 event.

No, I think all you can say based on your quote, is that SOME of the iron microspheres likely occurred during the event. I have no problem with this. Just like you can produce the iron microspheres through grinding and welding (through local high temps), the friction of steel columns on each other as they struck each other could have done so. As well, they could have been formed during the impact of the planes with the towers. As well, they could have been formed by many, MANY other causes.

There is likely MORE evidence for all of the examples I have provided, then there is for the presence of thermite.

OCCAM wins.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 03:17 PM

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:18 PM

No! Continuing to say this does not make it true. Show your proof that "thermite" could do this or STFU (your phrase I believe).Thermite burns at 4500oF. That is more than hot enough to vaporize lead at 3182oF.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 03:19 PM

oh I would be interested in the proof of vaporized lead as well...while you are at it.

TAM:)

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:22 PM

The temperatures that vaporized lead can only be explained by thermite. Thermite was found in the WTC dust and your denial of this is just denial. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

So Professor Jones forced to resign in disgrace = "approval" to you?

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
- A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

There was no thermite found in the WTC dust, BTW.

Captain_Swoop

19th July 2010, 03:23 PM

You have obviously never cadt your own fishing weights. Get the led too hot and it 'fumes' you need to do it outdoors and not lean in too close.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:27 PM

I have bolded your unproven lies. Care to defend them. Jones' et al and their poor excuse for a paper, with its plethora of methodological errors and unproven/unduplicated results is not considered proof here.You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper that was OK'd by BYU.

So (A) prove the ONLY way one can vaporize lead is through thermite The fires in the Trade Towers were not anywhere near hot enough. Thermite is the only known explanation.

(B) prove (without the Jones "paper") that there was thermite in the debris,Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:27 PM

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

Yes, "local" as in where the grinding surface comes in contact with the metal.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:31 PM

oh I would be interested in the proof of vaporized lead as well...while you are at it.

TAM:)I have posted the proof several times.
From the R.J. Lee Group report:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

beachnut

19th July 2010, 03:32 PM

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper that was OK'd by BYU.

...

Jones is insane; he was fired for his thermite paper, not OK'd, KO'd. lol

zero thermite product was found at the WTC; failure is 911 truth, 8 years of delusions

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:35 PM

I have posted the proof several times.
From the R.J. Lee Group report:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

http://www.nyhealth.gov/publications/2543/

LEAD FUMES are also created in many ways including:

* Using heat guns to remove paint from doors, windows, and other painted surfaces
* Welding or soldering lead containing materials
* Torch cutting painted and uncoated metal

Owned.

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 03:41 PM

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.

You realize that, that sounds crazy, right? That's some sort of figure eight 'logic' you've invented!

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:41 PM

I have posted the proof several times.
From the R.J. Lee Group report:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

http://www.ukqna.com/garden/3351-home-ukqna.html

You melt it down in a saucepan (an old one) on a stove and you can then pour it to seal a joint or whatever. You can make fishing weights like that using molds. With a soldering iron at very low heat. However using lead, and lead solders are dangerous, as they give off lead fumes. If you have lead plumbing in your house, you will slowly be getting lead poisoning from it, and it should be replaces with Plastic, or copper pipes. Until you understand the dangers of lead poisoning and how you get it dont lift a finger. It is best done where there is plenty of ventilation (outdoors) and any excessive heating to the lead pot is to be avoided as the lead vapor pressure is proportional to temperature.

Owned again.

DGM

19th July 2010, 03:45 PM

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper that was OK'd by BYU.

Source? Stop lying (look who I'm saying this to :rolleyes:)!

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 03:45 PM

Owned.
-Owned again.

That's gonna leave a mark! Owwwwch!

ETA: Double Owweee... :D

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 03:49 PM

So Professor Jones forced to resign in disgrace = "approval" to you?Your characterization is incorrect and has nothing to do with the thermite paper. He was forced to retire for questioning the OCT but allowed to continue using the facilities at BYU.

"I think [opinion] without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims"

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."
- A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

This response does not refer to the thermite paper. It was posted 11-11-07.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3145057&postcount=106

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 03:58 PM

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 04:00 PM

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris

Exactly.

Too bad for you it never passed peer review, huh?

Quad4_72

19th July 2010, 04:07 PM

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 04:51 PM

http://www.nyhealth.gov/publications/2543/

LEAD FUMES are also created in many ways including:

* Using heat guns to remove paint from doors, windows, and other painted surfaces
* Welding or soldering lead containing materials
* Torch cutting painted and uncoated metal

Owned.The R.J. Lee report did not say lead was heated and put off vapors, it said that lead, cadmium, mercury WERE VAPORIZED.

excaza

19th July 2010, 04:57 PM

The R.J. Lee report did not say lead was heated and put off vapors, it said that lead, cadmium, mercury WERE VAPORIZED.
:jaw-dropp I have no words, except a prayer for the masses of brain cells that just died. This will suffice:

http://humantestsubjects.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/facepalm.jpg

They were not vaporized, they were VAPORIZED

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 04:57 PM

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,645199800,00.html

BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave

PROVO — Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. This was an attack on Prof Jones' first amendment to question the government. It was done before the thermite paper was published so it has nothing to do with the thermite paper.

All this is a diversion from the fact that temperatures far in excess of what office or debris pile fires can attain occurred during the 9/11 event.

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 05:06 PM

The R.J. Lee report did not say lead was heated and put off vapors, it said that lead, cadmium, mercury WERE VAPORIZED.

FTW!
Thank you C7, STUNDIED!

Vaporized:
to cause to change into vapor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporized

TheRedWorm

19th July 2010, 05:07 PM

This was an attack on Prof Jones' first amendment to question the government. It was done before the thermite paper was published so it has nothing to do with the thermite paper.

Actually, he can question "the government" all he wants. Doesn't mean that his employers have to keep him on. I mean, if I worked at a vet's office, and I believed that animals couldn't feel pain, I could rightfully expect them not to keep me around.

All this is a diversion from the fact that temperatures far in excess of what office or debris pile fires can attain occurred during the 9/11 eve.

And how high a temperature is that? Does it take into account things like a honking huge UPS? How about the kinetic energy of both the impacts, and the collapsing of a honking huge building? What about the temperature of the pile post-collapse, any way to model that?

Even if we take your bare assertion as fact, you still have to explain, in detail, how much therm&te was there, and how it got there, just for starters.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 05:09 PM

Exactly.

Too bad for you it never passed peer review, huh?IYO. You are not qualified to second guess Neils Harrit and Dr. Farrer or the thermite paper.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 05:26 PM

Actually, he can question "the government" all he wants. Doesn't mean that his employers have to keep him on. I mean, if I worked at a vet's office, and I believed that animals couldn't feel pain, I could rightfully expect them not to keep me around.That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

And how high a temperature is that? Does it take into account things like a honking huge UPS? How about the kinetic energy of both the impacts, and the collapsing of a honking huge building? What about the temperature of the pile post-collapse, any way to model that?Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 05:31 PM

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.

Your statement aside. Do you really think there weren't numerous other ways to produce spheres, that occurred at Ground Zero? REALLY?

TheRedWorm

19th July 2010, 05:36 PM

That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

You completely ignored my example. Besides, my brother questions 9/11 (or at least, did) and he has not been fired from his job.

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

You ignored the valid points and questions I posted. For your convenience, I will post the bits you need to answer:

And how high a temperature is that? Does it take into account things like a honking huge UPS? How about the kinetic energy of both the impacts, and the collapsing of a honking huge building? What about the temperature of the pile post-collapse, any way to model that?

Even if we take your bare assertion as fact, you still have to explain, in detail, how much therm&te was there, and how it got there, just for starters.

W.D.Clinger

19th July 2010, 05:39 PM

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper
Several who post here are as qualified as any authors of that paper. None of the authors of that paper had any special qualifications with respect to thermite. Three of them had PhDs in a scientific discipline, as do a number of those who post at JREF.

that was OK'd by BYU.
Research universities generally do not review papers written by their faculty prior to publication. BYU's 2006 review of Jones was extraordinary, controversial, and did not go well for Jones; he was placed on paid leave, and retired from BYU early in 2007. The thermite paper wasn't published until April 2009.

The fires in the Trade Towers were not anywhere near hot enough. Thermite is the only known explanation.
Nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that vapor forms well below the boiling point. Water vapor, for example, forms well below the boiling point of water, and can be experienced rather directly on muggy, foggy, or cloudy days. Similarly, lead fumes (vapor) form well below the boiling point of lead.

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.
The thermite paper speculated about double top secret thermite in the debris but fell well short of demonstrating any such thing. Many scientists found its speculations to be laughable, raising questions about the alleged peer review process at the journal in which it was published. It turns out that the publication of that paper was highly irregular, and took place without the knowledge or consent of the journal's editor, who resigned in protest.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 05:39 PM

Your statement aside. Do you really think there weren't numerous other ways to produce spheres, that occurred at Ground Zero? REALLY?Not in the abundance found in the interior and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building and not in samples from around lower Manhattan.

Grizzly Bear

19th July 2010, 05:40 PM

C7, is the king of bald assertions, I'm not wasting time with his arguments... While you guys continue to deal with him, I'm jus' gonna slip this back in since I'm still curious what the thread starter has to offer: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6134918&postcount=55

Are there any sources that I can look at which state evidence pertaining to the precollapse condition of the building? Considering the history of the claimant used in the OP's video I would doubt he's the source of such a claim and I haven't seen anything about this data. Red, would you still mind linking it?

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 05:45 PM

Not in the abundance found in the interior and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building and not in samples from around lower Manhattan.

Any sciency stuff involved, or is that just your gut instinct?

PS
Did you learn anything, from your Stundie nomination, yet?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 05:48 PM

You completely ignored my example. Besides, my brother questions 9/11 (or at least, did) and he has not been fired from his job.He was forced to retire because he questioned the OCT. That is a frontal attack on his first amendment right and a warning to others. It does have the effect of silencing many.

You ignored the valid points and questions I posted. For your convenience, I will post the bits you need to answer:
you still have to explain, in detail, how much therm&te was there, and how it got there, just for starters. Your question is silly. ;-0

There is no way I could know these things. You have moved the goalpost to the dark side of the moon.

The USGS and R.J. Lee Group reports confirm temperatures far above what office or debris pile fires can attain.

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

TheRedWorm

19th July 2010, 05:53 PM

He was forced to retire because he questioned the OCT. That is a frontal attack on his first amendment right and a warning to others. It does have the effect of silencing many.

You now ignored two completely different points that addressed this. Bravo.

Your question is silly. ;-0

There is no way I could know these things. You have moved the goalpost to the dark side of the moon.

The USGS and R.J. Lee Group reports confirm temperatures far above what office or debris pile fires can attain.

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

Can't deal with the consequences? First off, we only have your bare assertion that this is true, you've not cited anything to support it. Also, to a larger point, it's been nearly a decade since the attacks, and almost 5 since the heyday (2006) of da twoof. What real world impact do truthers actually have? What do you actually hope to accomplish by posting here?

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 06:16 PM

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

See my sig!

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 06:32 PM

Several who post here are as qualified as any authors of that paper. Name one and their qualifications.

None of the authors of that paper had any special qualifications with respect to thermite. They are qualified to study the red/gray chips and determine what they are.

Nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that vapor forms well below the boiling point. Water vapor, for example, forms well below the boiling point of water, and can be experienced rather directly on muggy, foggy, or cloudy days. Similarly, lead fumes (vapor) form well below the boiling point of lead.Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

The PTB are doing everything they can to cast doubt on the thermite paper.
The thermite paper speculated about double top secret thermite in the debris but fell well short of demonstrating any such thing. Many scientists found its speculations to be laughable, raising questions about the alleged peer review process at the journal in which it was published. It turns out that the publication of that paper was highly irregular, and took place without the knowledge or consent of the journal's editor, who resigned in protest.Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?

"I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France."

"The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

Do you see the conundrum here? She is quite qualified to understand the research done by Prof. Harrit et al. Specific expertise in nano-thermite is not required to understand the photographs and chemical analysis of the nano-thermite found in the WTC dust..

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 06:37 PM

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

Perhaps it is not yours. I already proved you wrong in this thread, and the STUNDIES!
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226
Vaporized:
to cause to change into vapor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporized

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 06:46 PM

Can't deal with the consequences? First off, we only have your bare assertion that this is true, you've not cited anything to support it.Wrong! I am quoting official reports.

Also, to a larger point, it's been nearly a decade since the attacks, and almost 5 since the heyday (2006) of da twoof. What real world impact do truthers actually have? What do you actually hope to accomplish by posting here?Two things: To refine counter arguments to your denial arguments and keep the truth in front of any lurkers that might be fooled with your endless denial BS.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 06:50 PM

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper that was OK'd by BYU.

The fires in the Trade Towers were not anywhere near hot enough. Thermite is the only known explanation.

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.

1. Please show me the proof that BYU "Oked" the Jones "paper".
2. Please show me the PROOF of vaporized lead.

Thanks

TAM:)

excaza

19th July 2010, 06:50 PM

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.
You're right, the sentence IS quite clear in stating that lead was vaporized. It's already been pointed out to you how this can happen below the melting point of a material.

I seem to have missed it, where does it say lead was completely vaporized?

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 06:50 PM

Perhaps it is not yours. I already proved you wrong in this thread, and the STUNDIES!
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226I am so thrilled to be on your Stundies list. Given that this forum is known for denail and childish insults, it is indeed an honor. [however dubious ;-)]

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 06:51 PM

I have posted the proof several times.
From the R.J. Lee Group report:
Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, Vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."

That is not proof, that is a quote. Do they go on to then prove that the lead was vaporized, or is it merely their opinion. If they go on to prove it, please provide a quote of their proof here.

Thanks

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 06:55 PM

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Incorrect.

Care to try again.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 07:00 PM

Wrong! I am quoting official reports.

Two things: To refine counter arguments to your denial arguments and keep the truth in front of any lurkers that might be fooled with your endless denial BS.

what lurkers? this isn't 2006. There is no one left to convince Chris. Those few who believe the nonsense you do are it...that is all. It is over. You are merely a ball of wool for the amusement of the JREF kittens.

TAM:)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 07:28 PM

1. Please show me the proof that BYU "Oked" the Jones "paper".The fact that Dr. Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, and Daniel Farnsworth were allowed to list their affiliation with BYU in the thermite paper.

It has been over a year now ans there have been no recriminations like the forced retirement of Prof. Jones.

2. Please show me the PROOF of vaporized lead.R.J. Lee Group report pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust
and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.
Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point
would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film
deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The
results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited
material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the
materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 07:30 PM

what lurkers? this isn't 2006. There is no one left to convince Chris. Those few who believe the nonsense you do are it...that is all. It is over. You are merely a ball of wool for the amusement of the JREF kittens.

TAM:)But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a @#$%^&*. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

Dog Town

19th July 2010, 07:40 PM

But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a circlejerk. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

I always thought that was why you leave the safety of a twoofer site to come here. That, or even they humiliate your weak "arguments"!

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 07:44 PM

The fact that Dr. Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, and Daniel Farnsworth were allowed to list their affiliation with BYU in the thermite paper.

It has been over a year now ans there have been no recriminations like the forced retirement of Prof. Jones.

R.J. Lee Group report pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust
and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.
Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point
would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film
deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The
results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited
material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the
materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

1. Your above quote/comment implies a possible "tolerance" of their paper. You have shown me no proof of "Ok"ing the paper, which implies they endorsed it.

2. You have provided a quote where they expand upon what vaporizing meant, and what the evidence might show if this were the case. You have not provided any evidence that they found evidence of vaporized lead...sorry, try again.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 07:45 PM

But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a @#$%^&*. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

agreed. Every kitten needs the ball of the wool in order to remain amused.

TAM;)

lapman

19th July 2010, 07:52 PM

They are qualified to study the red/gray chips and determine what they are.Source showing that they have these specific qualifications?

Do you see the conundrum here? She is quite qualified to understand the research done by Prof. Harrit et al. Specific expertise in nano-thermite is not required to understand the photographs and chemical analysis of the nano-thermite found in the WTC dust..In order to do that, they have to compare it to actual nano-thermite, which they do not. BTW, at least specific knowledge of nano-thermite is requires which none of the authors posses, according to your standards.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 08:21 PM

IYO. You are not qualified to second guess Neils Harrit and Dr. Farrer or the thermite paper.

I'm not second guessing Harrit and Jones, I am merely pointing out that their paper was never peer reviewed.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 08:22 PM

1. Your above quote/comment implies a possible "tolerance" of their paper. You have shown me no proof of "Ok"ing the paper, which implies they endorsed it.I don't mean to imply that BYU endorses the thermite paper, only that they know of it, do not object to it, and OK'd Dr. Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth to list their affiliation with BYU.

You have provided a quote where they expand upon what vaporizing meant, and what the evidence might show if this were the case. You have not provided any evidence that they found evidence of vaporized lead...sorry, try again.pg 21 continues:
A variety of analytical techniques were applied to characterize the surface
chemistry of WTC materials. These analytical techniques included scanning
electron microscopy/energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS), X-ray
microprobe, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The SEM and
microprobe techniques provided details that sparked interest in a closer look
at the surface characteristics. XPS is a surface analysis technique that not
only can detect most of the elements of the periodic table, but can also
determine their oxidation state or binding energy. Thus XPS can provide
chemical species information for elements. XPS is capable of analyzing
components in the top 100 angstroms of surface. Because of the sensitivity to
surface components, XPS is highly useful in the characterization of chemistry
of the surface of the dust particles.

The XPS results indicate the presence of a thin contaminating film or coating
associated with the surface of particles. These surface species could be a
significant factor affecting the toxicity of the WTC Dust if the coatings on
particles and fibers are composed of hazardous substances. The coatings
vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed sub-
micron particles. The particles and coatings have been detected by low
accelerating voltage back-scattered electron imaging, X-ray microprobe
analysis, and high resolution XPS. For example, lead peaks from the surface
of mineral wool were identified by XPS. The high-resolution, narrow-range
XPS scan (Figure 25) led to the identification of two lead peaks representing
lead oxide or lead sulfate. The presence of lead oxides on the surface of
mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool. In addition to the trace amounts of lead, Table 2
indicates the presence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, silicon, sulfur,
chlorine and calcium on the surface of the mineral wool.

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2010, 08:23 PM

Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?

Yes, it's part of the peer-review process. Do you not understand how it works?

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 08:25 PM

I'm not second guessing Harrit and Jones, I am merely pointing out that their paper was never peer reviewed.Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 08:28 PM

Jon Cole put "The sulfur is from the drywall" disinformation to rest. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support that ridiculous hypothesis. Drywall is used for fireproofing. The claim that the sulfur in drywall was released from its chemical bonds in the fire is baseless and false.

SOurce?

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 08:29 PM

Yes, it's part of the peer-review process. Do you not understand how it works?I doubt the editor-in-chief reads every article and OK's it. ;-)

Please show the source your assertion that the editor-in-chief reads and OK's every article.

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 08:31 PM

SOurce?There is no source to back up the suggestion that the elemental sulfer in drywall could be released in a fire.

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 08:34 PM

That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles."

Site and source please. Thanks!!

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 08:35 PM

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

If by that you mean they sent it in for review, waited a long time, and then it was finally published.

Please, provide evidence that the review of their paper was lengthy. See unless you were one of the reviewers, you would not have access or knowledge of what the reviewers did or didnt do.

There is, however, cirCumstantial evidence that it was not. Most glaring evidence of this is that the paper was published despite many, many methodological errors, and poor, poor study design and process.

TAM:)

triforcharity

19th July 2010, 08:39 PM

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

Really? Where? From Bentham? The Pay-To-Publish sham journal?

LOL!! No, their review process consisted of "Did the check clear?"

W.D.Clinger

19th July 2010, 08:50 PM

Name one and their qualifications.
Sorry, but it's more fun to watch you demonstrate your investigative skills by failing to identify any.

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.
That is your interpretation. On the other hand, your remark about my first language casts doubt upon your ability to interpret what you read.

To be fair, I should consider the possibility that your remarks were out of character, rare mistakes, minor blemishes marring a generally admirable record...checking...chuckling...no, we can cross that off.

Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?
Apparently not.
:p

Your question reveals ignorance of Bentham's editorial structure, Pileni's position within that structure, and the reasons she gave for resigning as editor-in-chief of the specific journal that published the paper in question.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 08:56 PM

Interesting, Chris, that the same group, R.J. Lee group, also wrote this little article,

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Metals%20and%20Organics.Fin al.121503.pdf

Where in the 2nd last paragraph of page 2, they say,

This WTC Dust evaluation represents the most extensive microscopic investigation related to WTC Dust ever performed. Over 400,000 particles were classified using SEM techniques with approximately 80,000 images collected.

Amazingly, after identifying and classifying over 400,000 particles, not a single one identified as THERMITE/MATE.

I guess if was particle 400,001...right?

TAM:)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 09:04 PM

Please, provide evidence that the review of their paper was lengthy. See unless you were one of the reviewers, you would not have access or knowledge of what the reviewers did or didnt do.A reasonable question. I have read about this process. The info is probably at their website. I'll check it out.

There is, however, cirCumstantial evidence that it was not. Most glaring evidence of this is that the paper was published despite many, many methodological errors, and poor, poor study design and process.
Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant. :)

lapman

19th July 2010, 09:17 PM

Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant. :)You are not qualified to make this assertion.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 09:18 PM

A reasonable question. I have read about this process. The info is probably at their website. I'll check it out.

Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant. :)

Incorrect. I am a medical doctor, and have been in the past a clinical researcher. I have 3 degrees/diplomas in science/engineering, and I AM FULLY capable and qualified to assess a paper in terms of its methodology, and how it is structured. I have read the Harrit/Jones paper in full, and I found it full of errors in method, and its interpretation of the analysis findings to be flawed, both in terms of what they found, and what they did not rule out. Other people here, equally or superiorly qualified to me ( in terms of pure scientific education/background) have found it to be similarly flawed.

TAM:)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 09:19 PM

Interesting, Chris, that the same group, R.J. Lee group, also wrote this little article,

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Metals%20and%20Organics.Fin al.121503.pdf

Where in the 2nd last paragraph of page 2, they say,
Over 400,000 particles were classified using SEM techniques with approximately 80,000 images collected. Amazingly, after identifying and classifying over 400,000 particles, not a single one identified as THERMITE/MATE.Evidently, they did not look closely at the red/gray chips. They looked at the fibers and the iron spheres.

You can't find something if you don't look for it and they were not looking for thermite or nano-thermite.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 09:22 PM

Evidently, they did not look closely at the red/gray chips. They looked at the fibers and the iron spheres.

You can't find something if you don't look for it and they were not looking for thermite or nano-thermite.

seriously. Seriously. After the quote they gave, CLASSIFYING over 400,000 particles, your reply is essentially...

"They missed it."

ok, well for your so called lurkers, there is a classic quote.

As a final comment, they found 400,000 things they were not necessarily looking for...

TAM:)

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 09:23 PM

Incorrect. I am a medical doctor, and have been in the past a clinical researcher. I have 3 degrees/diplomas in science/engineering, and I AM FULLY capable and qualified to assess a paper in terms of its methodology, and how it is structured. I have read the Harrit/Jones paper in full, and I found it full of errors in method, and its interpretation of the analysis findings to be flawed, both in terms of what they found, and what they did not rule out. Other people here, equally or superiorly qualified to me ( in terms of pure scientific education/background) have found it to be similarly flawed.

TAM:)You are an anonymous poster on a website that attacks everyone who questions the OCT. :D

lapman

19th July 2010, 09:28 PM

You are an anonymous poster on a website that attacks everyone who questions the OCT. :D
Typical twoofer denial tactic.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 09:29 PM

believe what you wish Christopher, but I am not lying to you. I am more then qualified to assess the merits of the paper based on methodology and scientific process/method. The paper fails on many levels. I have provided proof of who I am to the admins of this forum, who have verified the proof and stated as much in the past for another "non-believer", namely PDoh.

But I really don't care. I am just telling you you are wrong if you think I am not qualified to assess the scientific merit (or lack there of) of the harrit/jones paper.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 09:31 PM

You are an anonymous poster on a website that attacks everyone who questions the OCT. :D

oh and I don't attack EVERYONE who questions the "OCT" (which I prefer to call the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT). I myself question certain areas of the official account. However, I do attack those who without evidence (near 100% of truthers) accuse innocent members of the USG and other institutions of conspiring to murder thousands of their fellow Americans.

Where do you fit in Chris?

TAM:D

Christopher7

19th July 2010, 09:38 PM

seriously. Seriously. After the quote they gave, CLASSIFYING over 400,000 particles, your reply is essentially...

"They missed it."

ok, well for your so called lurkers, there is a classic quote.

As a final comment, they found 400,000 things they were not necessarily looking for...

TAM:)You have no idea what those things were. The only things they talked about were fibers and iron spheres.
Here's their list of what they documented:
Mineral Wool, Glass Fragments, Glass Fiber, Perlite, Vermiculite, Ca/Si, Fe Sphere, Vesicular Carbonaceous, Hi Temp Si/Al-rich, Vermiculite/Gypsum, Chrysotile, C fiber, C flake

You can't find something if you don't look for it.

T.A.M.

19th July 2010, 09:43 PM

You have no idea what those things were. The only things they talked about were fibers and iron spheres.
Here's their list of what they documented:
Mineral Wool, Glass Fragments, Glass Fiber, Perlite, Vermiculite, Ca/Si, Fe Sphere, Vesicular Carbonaceous, Hi Temp Si/Al-rich, Vermiculite/Gypsum, Chrysotile, C fiber, C flake

You can't find something if you don't look for it.

SO they simply missed the numerous (by Jones own words) red/grey chips? I do not see them mentioned in your list. Say, that list, is that a quote from them as to the full list of things they classified? So the 400,000 particles they classified ALL fell into one of the above categories you list??? really? source for this by chance?

I find the door in front of me every morning before I leave the house, and I have never once had to go looking for it, so just stop with that silly little expression...it is nonsense.

I'll read your reply tomorrow. I am off to bed.

TAM:)