Why why can not Conspiracy theorist answer my one question?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I am going to put this into layman's terms.

Since it takes mechanical energy, to cause a nano thermite-mate reaction, basically thermal energy causing the aluminum to expand, Causing the oxide to break really fast.
Thank you Dr. Steven Jones for that.

How was all mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse since that is what causes all metal Oxide reactions, in other words what proof would there be that thermite-mate, instead of aluminum brought down the Twin Towers?

Is it unfair to use Dr Steven Joneses work to debunk the conspiracy theorists, is it a fair question?

I have asked it a thousand times and I have always been told by conspiracy theorist that the question is unfair or not based on real Science, what do you Nice intelligent people on here have to say on this?

I am working on the temperature curve this moment, the hotter the aluminum the weaker the bonds in the crystalline structure of the oxide coating, I am working on a mathematical model for the strength of the oxide, at different temperatures.

[uk_dave]

And that's laymans terms?

I'd hate to read the technical version....:boxedin:

[NickUK]

Unless it's a youtube video, they won't answer.

Evidence = videos, just like explosions = bombs.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am going to put this into layman's terms.

Since it takes mechanical energy, to cause a nano thermite-mate reaction, basically thermal energy causing the aluminum to expand, Causing the oxide to break really fast.
Thank you Dr. Steven Jones for that.

How was all mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse since that is what causes all metal Oxide reactions, in other words what proof would there be that thermite-mate, instead of aluminum brought down the Twin Towers?

Is it unfair to use Dr Steven Joneses work to debunk the conspiracy theorists, is it a fair question?

I have asked it a thousand times and I have always been told by conspiracy theorist that the question is unfair or not based on real Science, what do you Nice intelligent people on here have to say on this?

I am working on the temperature curve this moment, the hotter the aluminum the weaker the bonds in the crystalline structure of the oxide coating, I am working on a mathematical model for the strength of the oxide, at different temperatures.

I have absolutely no idea what you're asking.

Aluminum brought down the towers?? Huh??

What is your question? Alumino-thermic reactions are a chemical reaction, where the oxygen molecule is torn away from the metal-oxide and bonds with aluminum, forming aluminum oxide, and producing heat energy in the process.

[uk_dave]

Alumino-thermic?

You sure about that? lol

[TruthSeeker1234]

Alumino-thermic?

You sure about that? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminothermic_reaction

[uk_dave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminothermic_reaction

ahhhh ok i retract my skepticism.... which was based upon the butchery of the english language, not any chemical theory :D

[maccy]

ahhhh ok i retract my skepticism....

Don't retract it too far, the skin might grow back over it and the you'll be stuck without it.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have absolutely no idea what you're asking.

Aluminum brought down the towers?? Huh??

What is your question? Alumino-thermic reactions are a chemical reaction, where the oxygen molecule is torn away from the metal-oxide and bonds with aluminum, forming aluminum oxide, and producing heat energy in the process.

Is there Oxygen in the air, or in carbon dioxide in smoke, and what force breaks the Oxide coating allowing the reactions to take place?

Aluminum will oxidize with air if the oxide coating is sufficiently agitate.

The same fuel different oxygen source. I sand blasted molten aluminum with aluminum Oxide dust and got a thermite like reaction, were did the Oxygen come from? The sand blasting was on the lowest setting 5 psi, the more fluid the Aluminum the weaker the Oxide coating.

Does steam contain Oxygen, any Oxygen source will do we are talking aluminum Oxide reactions since aluminum is the fuel source any oxide source will work. DA:jaw-dropp

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You have never worked with thermite, or aluminum have you TruthSeeker1234?

http://chainsawsanders.com/thermitea.JPG
Thermite reaction from an impact!

http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody2.JPG
Aluminum burning in air!

Both 2800c and twice the brightness of the sun!

[R.Mackey]

The reason is simple...

Troothers don't "do" answers. Heck, they can't even answer their own questions -- what makes you think they could answer someone else's?

[uk_dave]

The woowoo's are going to get sooo slaughtered if their little film ever gets a theatrical release....I almost feel sorry for them......almost.

[R.Mackey]

Not me.

I read in the paper yesterday about how a couple of people are suing "Borat," claiming they were misled into signing release statements.

Can you imagine the uproar that would hit LCFC?

Personally, I don't think it's going to make an actual release, but stay underground. I could be wrong. But I've seen nothing at all so far to suggest these people have the first clue how to produce a real movie.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The reason is simple...

Troothers don't "do" answers. Heck, they can't even answer their own questions -- what makes you think they could answer someone else's?

I know, one of them told me that Aluminum could not possibly burn in air, so my question was stupid, I had to remind him of the space shuttle Columbia, to prove him wrong.

http://www.dmanuta.com/dmm/ksawyer1.doc

It makes me want to cry almost every time I think of that Shuttles loss.

[R.Mackey]

I know, one of them told me that Aluminum could not possibly burn in air, so my question was stupid, I had to remind him of the space shuttle Columbia, to prove him wrong.

http://www.dmanuta.com/dmm/ksawyer1.doc

It makes me want to cry almost every time I think of that Shuttles loss.
You and me both, brother. I work for NASA, and I work in the field of system health management.

Anyway, the "burning aluminum" thing is a matter of perspective. Aluminum blocks are pretty tough to burn -- the first time I got into an argument about this was during the Falkland Islands battle, over the tragedy of HMS Sheffield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29). At the time its lightweight aluminum armor, relatively untested, was thought by many to have "burned." But later inquiry showed that it wasn't burning (in fact, didn't even have much of it), rather the fire was due to other materials, up to and including crew uniforms. Nasty.

But under the right conditions, certainly Aluminum will burn. Flash powder, anyone?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Is there Oxygen in the air,



yes

or in carbon dioxide in smoke,



yes

and what force breaks the Oxide coating allowing the reactions to take place?

You mean in an alumino-thermic reaction? A thermite reaction? It is an electrical force of attraction strong enough to rip the oxygen molecule off of the iron molecule and onto the aluminum molecule.



Aluminum will oxidize with air if the oxide coating is sufficiently agitate.

The same fuel different oxygen source. I sand blasted molten aluminum with aluminum Oxide dust and got a thermite like reaction, were did the Oxygen come from?



uh, the aluminum oxide perhaps? I don't think this could be a very strong reaction, because you have aluminum giving up oxygen to aluminum.



The sand blasting was on the lowest setting 5 psi, the more fluid the Aluminum the weaker the Oxide coating.

Does steam contain Oxygen, any Oxygen source will do we are talking aluminum Oxide reactions since aluminum is the fuel source any oxide source will work. DA:jaw-dropp

I don't mean to be rude, I don't understand your question that you think we are afraid to answer. Could someone rephrase it in standard English?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You and me both, brother. I work for NASA, and I work in the field of system health management.

Anyway, the "burning aluminum" thing is a matter of perspective. Aluminum blocks are pretty tough to burn -- the first time I got into an argument about this was during the Falkland Islands battle, over the tragedy of HMS Sheffield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29). At the time its lightweight aluminum armor, relatively untested, was thought by many to have "burned." But later inquiry showed that it wasn't burning (in fact, didn't even have much of it), rather the fire was due to other materials, up to and including crew uniforms. Nasty.

But under the right conditions, certainly Aluminum will burn. Flash powder, anyone?

I know, and I wrote a poem about the shuttle, I have it around here some where, I will try to find it later.
The first time I saw burning aluminum was at a semi wreak, it was a multi ton ingot from the Aluminum mill. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/nsa/nsa_p1.html
The Aluminum is not supposed to burn in multi ton Ingots that is what made me wonder about the towers, and the planes Aluminum.
Something that day prevented the Oxide from forming until the truck engine was shut down and the truck stopped shaking.
Imagine energy applied to molten aluminum in the same manor.

[Gravy]

Why why can not Conspiracy theorist answer my one question?Because they read your story about shaving the whiskers of that thief with your chainsaw, and they are very, very afraid. To them you're like the Jason of the debunkers.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Because they read your story about shaving the whiskers of that thief with your chainsaw, and they are very, very afraid. To them you're like the Jason of the debunkers.

And here I thought it was the video of me shaving my legs with the chainsaw that was turning them away. The picture on my profile is from that video.

[Gravy]

And here I thought it was the video of me shaving my legs with the chainsaw that was turning them away. The picture on my profile is from that video.You really need to open a "World's Toughest Barbershop." Guys would line up around the block and pay big bucks to say they got a chainsaw trim. Insurance would be a bit of an issue, but you could have them videotape their permission/disclaimer, and maybe take a breathalyzer beforehand. Think of the T-shirt, coffee mug, and toiletries sales!

[Oliver]

Who is Doc Jones? Is he really still alive and has
something new to the MIHOP-Crap? Seriously.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You really need to open a "World's Toughest Barbershop." Guys would line up around the block and pay big bucks to say they got a chainsaw trim. Insurance would be a bit of an issue, but you could have them videotape their permission/disclaimer, and maybe take a breathalyzer beforehand. Think of the T-shirt, coffee mug, and toiletries sales!
May have to do that, with the constant rain and all business has been down.
I used to make a fortune at bar bets, but since I got famous for what I do no one will bet against me any more!
Yes mine was a mis spent youth, I spent my days doing sculptures of naked women as they posed for me and got paid to do it. That can corrupt a young teenager 14-15. There is the one under ware model, I got so good I could do her bare skin on a bear skin rug, from memory alone, every time she got a new boyfriend I did a new sculpture, about 3 times a month.
If I could only bottle and sell my memories.
The only problem is I found out early how shallow many people really are, just hollow shells, with nothing inside, pretty on the outside but empty within.

Sorry about getting off topic, I sometime reminisce about my misspent youth, I have to admit it was fun. I apologize. Hope no one is offended.
It is sometimes hard to keep those times out of my thoughts.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

For R.Mackey

This is the only copy I could find.

http://chainsawsanders.com/Columbia.JPG

[Horatius]

And here I thought it was the video of me shaving my legs with the chainsaw that was turning them away. The picture on my profile is from that video.

I may regret this, but - Can you post a link to that video? I'm pretty sure I could win a few bets with it.....

[Crazy Chainsaw]

yes



yes



You mean in an alumino-thermic reaction? A thermite reaction? It is an electrical force of attraction strong enough to rip the oxygen molecule off of the iron molecule and onto the aluminum molecule.
Yes just as carbon can rip the oxide off of iron ore to produce Iron.

No Aluminum reacts to the oxygen in air, it Oxidizes when ever the Aluminum Oxide is broken as long as it has an oxygen source, air is about 20 percent oxygen.






uh, the aluminum oxide perhaps? I don't think this could be a very strong reaction, because you have aluminum giving up oxygen to aluminum.

Air how about that as the Oxidizing compound?



I don't mean to be rude, I don't understand your question that you think we are afraid to answer. Could someone rephrase it in standard English?

How can you prove that aluminum would not burn in the collapse do to the energy of the building falling on it, breaking the Aluminum oxide coating of the molten aluminum from the planes and aluminum in the building that had become molten?
To do so you have to eleminate all mechanical energy that could have triggered the reaction.

Even wave motion sound can cause aluminum to react, I can make it dance to music.
Any energy that involves motion can cause aluminum to react.

The reason that you use small particles of Aluminum in thermite with 1/3 aluminum to 2/3 Iron oxide is so the thermal energy of the trigger device will expand the oxide coating, and so the oxide will not reform, when the device is triggered. Molten aluminum is different, it can auto heat once it reaches the temperature where the oxide melts nothing can stop it from Oxidizing do to the oxide flowing away for the Aluminum.
The sand blasting mainly showed that the Aluminum burned in air, even better than I expected.
PS. Aluminum Oxide could never have been the Oxide providing compound, Aluminum Oxidizing produces Aluminum Oxide, Once produce the Oxide is extremely hard to separate from the aluminum.
That is the reason that Aluminum is the metal with the greatest production cost, to produce, it takes a lot of energy to break the oxide coating.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I may regret this, but - Can you post a link to that video? I'm pretty sure I could win a few bets with it.....

That Video is not currently on line, as I am still in negotiations with Ripley's for the rights to show it.
Here is the one on my gambling addiction though.
http://chainsawsanders.com/Gambler2.WMV

I do hope soon to do another national TV. show, and I owe it all to the scientific method, and logic.

[R.Mackey]

For R.Mackey

This is the only copy I could find.

http://chainsawsanders.com/Columbia.JPG
Thanks. Nicely done.

That Video is not currently on line, as I am still in negotiations with Ripley's for the rights to show it.
Here is the one on my gambling addiction though.
http://chainsawsanders.com/Gambler2.WMV

I do hope soon to do another national TV. show, and I owe it all to the scientific method, and logic.
See, this is what I love about the JREF Forum.

You never know what kind of things other users are up to. Never!

[Horatius]

That Video is not currently on line, as I am still in negotiations with Ripley's for the rights to show it.
Here is the one on my gambling addiction though.
http://chainsawsanders.com/Gambler2.WMV

I do hope soon to do another national TV. show, and I owe it all to the scientific method, and logic.

Damn. I have a hard enough time just cutting a straight line with a chainsaw.


Do keep us posted on the Ripley's thing, please!

ETA: This is probably the closest I could come:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9490455fc02f55e04.jpg

[Pardalis]

You shave your legs with a chainsaw?

Why?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You shave your legs with a chainsaw?

Why?

Have you ever tried to get some one else to stand still why you shave their legs with a chainsaw?

Plus it is not the dumest thing that can be done with a chainsaw.

"Wed Feb 11, 6:32 AM ET

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German actress was taken to hospital after an artist injured her breasts while trying to cut open her bra with a chainsaw during a rehearsal for a stage show, she has told a newspaper.

"It was the worst moment of my life. I thought, Sibylle, you're going to die," the actress, former porn star Sibylle Rauch, 43, told Bild newspaper.

The chainsaw operator, performance artist Marko Koenig, said Rauch was lying down during the rehearsal on Monday and suddenly bent forward just as he was applying the saw to her bra.

"I couldn't pull back the chainsaw quickly enough and cut her breast and stomach. It was terrible," he told Bild. The hospital in Karlsruhe, southwest Germany, where Rauch was treated declined to give details of her injuries. "We are not authorised to comment on our patients," a spokesman said.

After the terrible accident, which went through all media, Erotikstar Sibylle smoke is again on the way of the improvement. The actress ("ice at the handle") overcame the shock of her accident with partner and action artist Marko king. "Marko does not meet a debt, it was although more terrible an industrial accident. Marko could avoid thanks of experience of many years worse ". "the wounds do not do already any longer pain and I hope in such a way that no visible scars remain", so the artist in the long term. Shortly Sibylle smoke and action artist Marko king continue with the samples to the "Kettensaegenshow" and the concept "ice to Stiel" party and are ready for new spectacular appearances. Also the two want to show the famous BH number"

Note to the German chainsaw artist when removing a bra one of my old stunts, cut the underwire first, before taking the chainsaw to the bra.

Some germans offered me a lot of money if I would do the stunt in an adult film, I declined sticking with family entertainment.

Any body here want to help me practice the old belt buckle stunt though, you wear it I carve it?

[Horatius]

Have you ever tried to get some one else to stand still why you shave their legs with a chainsaw?


I think this is the most reasonable answer I've ever heard, anywhere.

[TruthSeeker1234]

How can you prove that aluminum would not burn in the collapse do to the energy of the building falling on it, breaking the Aluminum oxide coating of the molten aluminum from the planes and aluminum in the building that had become molten?
To do so you have to eleminate all mechanical energy that could have triggered the reaction.


I must not understand your question. I'm assuming that you are not a native English speaker, your syntax is a bit foreign to my ear.

Let's see. You want me to assume there is an aluminum oxide coating on aluminum aircraft parts, and assume there is molten aluminum in the building, then assume the building collapses, then try to prove that the mechanical energy is insufficient to break off the aluminum oxide from the molten aluminum, and/or insufficient to burn the already molten aluminum?

Do I have this right? Help me, I honestly don't understand what you're asking "conspiracy theorist" to respond to.

[TruthSeeker1234]

By the way, Chainsaw, are you the author of the "debunking" site? It's that "theorist" instead of "theorists" thing.

[Gravy]

Have you ever tried to get some one else to stand still why you shave their legs with a chainsaw?Why, no, I haven't, although I often dream about the possibility. The best I can do here in Brooklyn is run an extension cord out to the street with my Sawzall and see who's game, but that lacks the single-stroke menace that you bring.

Let's hope it never comes to this, but if it does, I'd pay good money to see Horatius "Krazy Katana" vs. Crazy Chainsaw.

FEMA camp festivities!

[Horatius]

Let's hope it never comes to this, but if it does, I'd pay good money to see Horatius "Krazy Katana" vs. Crazy Chainsaw.

FEMA camp festivities!

It all comes down to how fast I can run vs. how big a gas tank he has.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I must not understand your question. I'm assuming that you are not a native English speaker, your syntax is a bit foreign to my ear.

Let's see. You want me to assume there is an aluminum oxide coating on aluminum aircraft parts, and assume there is molten aluminum in the building, then assume the building collapses, then try to prove that the mechanical energy is insufficient to break off the aluminum oxide from the molten aluminum, and/or insufficient to burn the already molten aluminum?

Do I have this right? Help me, I honestly don't understand what you're asking "conspiracy theorist" to respond to.

What are planes made of, Aluminum, Aluminum does not burn because of the oxide coating on it. If the planes had no Aluminum Oxide coating then the planes would instantly burst into a white hot fireball at 2800c.
The planes Aluminum melts at 600c and becomes molten, now prove that there is no Mechanical energy motion in the collapse of the towers to cause an aluminum+ Oxygen-Burning Aluminum reaction.
PS. All Aluminum+ Oxygen reactions require an active energy to break the Oxide coating, the higher the temperature of the Aluminum the less energy that is required to break the oxide coating.
All the energies, are in a motion or wave form, so prove there is none not even sound in the collapse.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It all comes down to how fast I can run vs. how big a gas tank he has.

About 25-30 minutes of run time, I do have a concrete cutting chainsaw with a diamond chain that will cut though a sword like butter though.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What are planes made of, Aluminum, Aluminum does not burn because of the oxide coating on it. If the planes had no Aluminum Oxide coating then the planes would instantly burst into a white hot fireball at 2800c.
The planes Aluminum melts at 600c and becomes molten, now prove that there is no Mechanical energy motion in the collapse of the towers to cause an aluminum+ Oxygen-Burning Aluminum reaction.
PS. All Aluminum+ Oxygen reactions require an active energy to break the Oxide coating, the higher the temperature of the Aluminum the less energy that is required to break the oxide coating.
All the energies, are in a motion or wave form, so prove there is none not even sound in the collapse.

I see. Yes, I would think it is theoretically possible for friction in a building collapse to burn some amount of aluminum.

[Gravy]

About 25-30 minutes of run time, I do have a concrete cutting chainsaw with a diamond chain that will cut though a sword like butter though.JREFEMA Gladiatorama is hereby cancelled. :boxedin:

[ArmillarySphere]

I fear the chainsaw-wielding JREF ninjas... :eek:

[PerryLogan]

Coming to a theater near you:
Chainsaw-Wielding JREF Ninjas
starring Tom Cruise

I think the real answer to Chainsaw's original question (why can not Conspiracy theorist answer my one question?) is that Truthers never answer questions.

Truthers never give straight answers; they never get their facts right; they have no command of dialectical thinking; they never laugh or smile.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I see. Yes, I would think it is theoretically possible for friction in a building collapse to burn some amount of aluminum.

It is not only theoretical, Nist found evidence of burned Aluminum casing but declined to use that as evidence of temperature, because you can not tell if it was from the fire, or from the energy of the collapse, and that was solid aluminum.
Given the potential energy involved and the ease of breaking the Oxide layer in molten Aluminum, It is just about assured that Aluminum burned in the twin towers, the amount depends on the temperature of the aluminum, the energy of the collapse, the available oxides, and the general amount of molten Aluminum.
When I sand blasted aluminum, the Aluminum burned and the particles picked up most of the heat and actually floated in the air. It was like watching a miniature pyrocaustic flow forming right in front of me.
If that happened in the towers and went down the central core then the buildings where fried toast, and if that hot debris hit world trade 7 it could explain a lot.
http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=22618

I even set off a thermite like reaction that in nature would have been completely natural in the buildings, and yes it was explosive not endothermic as I had expected, it produce hot burning aluminum similar to a gasoline fireball, a fuel air blast with aluminum as the fuel I even got something similar to a sun burn from it.
It was incredible, to say the least and bright to bright, even a welding hood did not protect my eyes enough.
Lets just say I never want to see that again.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Coming to a theater near you:
Chainsaw-Wielding JREF Ninjas
starring Tom Cruise

I think the real answer to Chainsaw's original question (why can not Conspiracy theorist answer my one question?) is that Truthers never answer questions.

Truthers never give straight answers; they never get their facts right; they have no command of dialectical thinking; they never laugh or smile.

I thought some of the threats, insults, and hate mail that truthers have sent me were quite humorous, especially the ones who can not spell the word death, kick, or but.
I also think they should check out who they are threatening before they start something, they might find more than they bargain for.
The bright side is I am probably taking some of the hate off of DR. Greening, and the other real Scientist that are actually investigating 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

Does the Chainsaw pull on the hair as it is "shaving" you?

lol

TAM

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Does the Chainsaw pull on the hair as it is "shaving" you?

lol

TAM


Yes, but no worse than a waxing.:)

[Horatius]

About 25-30 minutes of run time, I do have a concrete cutting chainsaw with a diamond chain that will cut though a sword like butter though.

Oh yeah, I'm screwed. No way I can run that long.....Time for the old Banzai try-and-die.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I thought some of the threats, insults, and hate mail that truthers have sent me were quite humorous, especially the ones who can not spell the word death, kick, or but.
I also think they should check out who they are threatening before they start something, they might find more than they bargain for.
The bright side is I am probably taking some of the hate off of DR. Greening, and the other real Scientist that are actually investigating 9/11.

Making fun of other people's grammatical errors in the same passage as committing your own is entertaining. Chainsaw, you make the same language errors as the author of the "debunking" site. Are you him/her?

[Horatius]

Making fun of other people's grammatical errors in the same passage as committing your own is entertaining. Chainsaw, you make the same language errors as the author of the "debunking" site. Are you him/her?

Which debunking website are you referring to? There don't seem to be any such links here.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I was referring to this one.

http://www.debunking911.com/

[Bell]

I was referring to this one.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Instead of paying attention to language errors on that site, pay attention to what is presented there. It might help you in understanding what happened on 9/11. Allthough I won't hold my breath.

[T.A.M.]

making fun of gramatical errors within a blog or forum is useless really. Most people make such errors out of haste more so than illiteracy or lack of language skills anyway.

TAM

[Trifikas]

Yes, but no worse than a waxing.:)

You had a waxing? Man, I thought you were brave for the Chainsaw-shaving trick...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Making fun of other people's grammatical errors in the same passage as committing your own is entertaining. Chainsaw, you make the same language errors as the author of the "debunking" site. Are you him/her?

When you start getting personal hate mail, from Jerfers, I will listen to your comment, and no I do not have a debunking site I simply go by the physical evidence.

As it is presented by the materials involved!

Have you ever received a death treat from a debunker, in the mail?
Is it not better I laugh it off than saw off one of their private parts?

[T.A.M.]

When you start getting personal hate mail, from Jerfers, I will listen to your comment, and no I do not have a debunking site I simply go by the physical evidence.

As it is presented by the materials involved!

Have you ever received a death treat from a debunker, in the mail?
Is it not better I laugh it off than saw off one of their private parts?

with 100% certainty...YES!!!

TAM

[R.Mackey]

Oh yeah, I'm screwed. No way I can run that long.....Time for the old Banzai try-and-die.
This is quite a surreal conversation... but entertaining...

I think we've coined a new phrase here: Bringing a knife to a chainsaw fight.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This is quite a surreal conversation... but entertaining...

I think we've coined a new phrase here: Bringing a knife to a chainsaw fight.

Wonder would that be a good motto, for people who are from loose change trying to debate Jerfers?

Conspiracy theorist, trying to debate Jerfers is like bringing, a knife to a chainsaw fight, would that be a good assessment of the debate?

[Pardalis]

I think it's JREFers

[Pardalis]

You shave your legs with a chainsaw?

Why?

Have you ever tried to get some one else to stand still why you shave their legs with a chainsaw?

Thanks for answering my question, but my question really only was:

Why do you shave your legs?

;)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think it's JREFers

Thank you for the clarification, I some times still have trouble seeing after the Aluminum+Oxygen explosion, I witnessed the price of knowledge, and discovery.
Do you think it would be a good comparison though, a Conspiracy theorist debating a JERFer Skeptic, is like someone bringing a knife to a chainsaw fight.

[Pardalis]

Usually when you ask a question you leave a question mark at the end of the sentence.

[defaultdotxbe]

Because they read your story about shaving the whiskers of that thief with your chainsaw, and they are very, very afraid. To them you're like the Jason of the debunkers.
sorry to dig this up from the first page, but Jason carried a machete, our crazy friend here would be the Leatherface of debunkers

[Trifikas]

Why must they fight? Can't we get CC and Horatius together a build a chainsaw katana?

[defaultdotxbe]

Why must they fight? Can't we get CC and Horatius together a build a chainsaw katana?
thats fine...as long as they build 2 and then fight, lol

[Pardalis]

A chainsaw Katana?

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar9807_5.gif

I'd like to see that! :D

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Usually when you ask a question you leave a question mark at the end of the sentence.
Sorry about that, my typing skills are not what they used to be, to much running the saws. The . is right next to the ? I accidentally hit the wrong key and did not catch it.
I was startled by the great big Buck deer running into the side of the house and going bang also about that time, it is deer season and they are a little spooked.
At least I am not patching bullet holes this year in the roof, Hunters from Louisville, Ky again wish they would learn to shoot strait.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

A chainsaw Katana?

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar9807_5.gif

I'd like to see that! :D

Would it look something like this,
http://chainsawsanders.com/Image38.jpg

this one is about the size of the saw I shaved the guy with in the article.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks for answering my question, but my question really only was:

Why do you shave your legs?

;)

Money, Fame, Beautiful Women, but mainly because I can and it makes it a lot easier to tape a lottery ticket to the leg.lol:D

I also talk about chainsaw safety, to people taking up chainsaw art, and it is a way to get someones attention, and show them if they learn enough they can do the dangerous parts that are required in the profession, and not lose body parts.

I teach the art form. You would not believe the people who have taken up chainsaw art to make a living from around the world.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/03/1086203556300.html

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192947/bio

http://www.vancouverbiennaleclassroom.com/artists/artist.php?id=3

Over six thousand now world wide and growing.

Every one coming to me with a question once in a while, unfortunately I seem to be the expert.

[Pardalis]

I also talk about chainsaw safety

Wouldn't that include... not shaving yourself with a chainsaw? ;)

Just kidding. Interesting stuff. I for one like to stay as far as possible from a chainsaw.

[Horatius]

Would it look something like this,
http://chainsawsanders.com/Image38.jpg

this one is about the size of the saw I shaved the guy with in the article.

I'm reminded of a little song from a Newfoundland group, Buddy Whasisname and The Other Fellas.

Chainsaw Earle (http://www.buddywasisname.com/chainsaw.htm)

Relevant bit:

Chain, chain, chain saw Earle

His cutter bar was ten foot two
Turn the air all purple and blue
Tasmania devil in twenty minutes flat
Made the landscape look just like Iraq

With the trees all limbed and the fire break made
The town folks saved from a charcoal grave
People gathered
Shouted and cheered,
"Hurray for this force disposal unit."

Lightin' up a smoke he laid the chainsaw down
Said, "I'm the guy who saved your town."
Then Earle knocked over a drum of gas
Just as he threw away his match.
All the gas exploded and the town burned flat
And Earle ran off just like a scalded cat
"It's been fifteen years", his father said.
"And he's still as stunned as me arse!"

Stunned, stunned, stunned as me arse
Stunned, stunned, stunned as me arse
Stunned, stunned, stunned as me arse, was Earle.

[Horatius]

Why must they fight? Can't we get CC and Horatius together a build a chainsaw katana?

thats fine...as long as they build 2 and then fight, lol

How much an I getting paid for this again?

Doesn't matter. No matter what it is, it isn't enough......

[Pardalis]

Chainsaw Earl would make a great couple with the "log lady"

http://zembla.cementhorizon.com/archives/LogLady.jpg

[Crazy Chainsaw]

How was all mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse since that is what causes all metal Oxide reactions, in other words what proof would there be that thermite-mate, instead of aluminum brought down the Twin Towers?

You do realize do you not JERFers that this is the fatal flaw in Dr. Joneses theories, to eleminate the trigger energy for Aluminum+Oxygen reactions you have to stop the Buildings form collapsing in the first place!
The complexity of the collapses makes it impossible for Dr. Jones to Prove his theories, If Aluminum+Oxygen reactions took place.
There is no way for a Conspiracy theorist to answer the question and win, so they try to ignore it, skip around it or attack!
Just though I would let you know.

[defaultdotxbe]

How much an I getting paid for this again?

Doesn't matter. No matter what it is, it isn't enough......
one does not need to get paid to defend ones honor

[Crazy Chainsaw]

one does not need to get paid to defend ones honor

"Honor, and stupidity often rest in the same grave,"
Wild Bill Hickok,
is I believe who said that.

[Horatius]

There's also Falstaff's "There lies an honorable man!"

[Toro]

Unless it's a youtube video, they won't answer.

Evidence = videos, just like explosions = bombs.

ROLMFAO

[tsig]

About 25-30 minutes of run time, I do have a concrete cutting chainsaw with a diamond chain that will cut though a sword like butter though.

Hi chainsaw, the last time I ran a chainsaw I tripped over a barbed fence and came to rest with both hands on the side of the blade and my face looking at the rotating chain.

I shut it off and put it in the back of the truck.

[tsig]

I fear the chainsaw-wielding JREF ninjas... :eek:

Check my post

[tsig]

You do realize do you not JERFers that this is the fatal flaw in Dr. Joneses theories, to eleminate the trigger energy for Aluminum+Oxygen reactions you have to stop the Buildings form collapsing in the first place!
The complexity of the collapses makes it impossible for Dr. Jones to Prove his theories, If Aluminum+Oxygen reactions took place.
There is no way for a Conspiracy theorist to answer the question and win, so they try to ignore it, skip around it or attack!
Just though I would let you know.

Gravity! The first energy!

[tsig]

"Honor, and stupidity often rest in the same grave,"
Wild Bill Hickok,
is I believe who said that.

But the tombstone says the same thing.

[Neil MacInnis]

Okay! Science time!

Aluminium oxidises in air with a slightly exothermic reaction until an aluminium oxide coating forms isolating the aluminium from the air. This coat is extremely hard and chemical resistant and blocks all further oxidisation by ambient oxygen. In order to continuous oxidise the aluminium then you can coat it with something such as a mercury paste which would and does dissolve this layer react fresh aluminium then drop the dissolved aluminium oxide repeating this over and over till the aluminium crumbles. Aluminium will not will never, can not burn in ambient air at STP when it is a solid and not in dust form.

Don’t believe me? Well then go hold a match to aluminium foil, try a blow torch try an oxygen torch. The aluminium will never self sustain as the oxide layer puts the fire out in ordinary conditions. Now molten aluminium if sprayed in the air can burn because as it is molten it is highly reactive. Using a sand blaster on it would be sending a jet of air carrying particles with it, into the aluminium. This would lift tiny blobs of Al into he air where it’s already at a temperature that it can burn. The deciding factor is that there is nothing for the oxide to adhere to so it can burn, that being said a crucible of molten aluminium thrown into the air will not burn as its still not a likely thing. The ingot you saw burning was very possibly laced with Mg, which will burn and resemble the burning of aluminium right down to the white smoke and white fire.

Even ultrasonic vibration is not enough to shred the aluminium oxide coating from the surface of solid aluminium its simple to well bonded so no, there is no chance the plane hitting shredded off the oxide coating causing it to ignite explosively, in and of its self. Aeroplane skins are also never pure aluminium on the out side. Its like a pop can, acid rain would etch and damage it. There is a layer of paint, like on pop cans, basically a thin layer of plastic.

Aluminium will burn in fire works and such (think military flash bangs) when it is combined with strong oxidisers and ignited as it is then super heated and bathed in pure radical oxygen.

The thermite reaction is the reducing reaction imposed on a pure metal with a metallic oxide. In thermite black this looks like this

3Fe3O4(s) + 8Al(s) → 4Al2O3(s) + 9Fe(L)

This reaction transfers the oxygen from the iron to the aluminium. It can be created using pure magnesium instead of ground aluminium as well. In terms of the oxides that will work, boron, manganese, chromium, copper, titanium... the list goes on. But there must be an oxygen containing metal oxide for the thermite reaction to take place and there must be a reducing agent. Calcium oxides, sodium oxides, potassium oxide zirconium oxides will not function in the thermite reaction with aluminium, as they are simply to strongly bonded.

As for the space shuttle, an object going 25 times the speed of sound produces huge friction of course. The space shuttle is NOT made of aluminium how ever, its titanium mainly. The titanium when heated to its melting point burns explosively in air with a white flame, this is why titanium is melted with inert gasses such as argon and not in a open crucible like aluminium, in furnaces. Even then look at the space shuttle and say it is mainly Al not Ti, you are talking about an object going Mack 25. The air acts as a non-stop abrasive removing metal not as a solid but as a gas. You are not talking about solid Al you are talking about gaseous Al reacting with oxygen that is super heated as well. You are also talking about plasma forming temperatures not plain boring old impact with a cement building temperatures.

Have you ever taken a look at the plans for aeroplanes? Look at the cubic volume of the shell compared to the mass. Then factor in structural steel things such as the landing gears and the skeleton, then factor in the non metals such as upholstery and foam insulation, then factor in all the non aluminium mechanical things such as fuel tanks and engines (ever seen how much the engines and landing struts for a 767 weighs?) now in looking at the mass when fuelled to take off, almost onehundredforty thousand pounds of the gross weight is fuel alone. When you do all the math you will find that pop cans and aeroplanes have a lot in common. The skin of the aircraft is just that, a thin skin. Most of its thickness is non-metallic padding and insulation. The amount of aluminium is so minimal that it’s not worth considering in terms of a deciding factor in any thermo reactions. there is simply not enough aluminium there to do anything in comparison to the space the aluminium is spread out over.

Now that we have looked at the lack of our first ingredient for a thermite reaction (the reducing agent) lets look at our second. For a thermite reaction there would have had to be a massive supply of oxides. The most comment oxide present would most likely have been manganese... in batteries! Yeah! The second most common oxide would be aluminium, in light bulbs. and we wont bother to mention the silicon oxide in glass and computer chips as that is almost endothermic in the thermite reaction with aluminium, if it can be even started.

There was simple nothing for the aluminium to react with using the thermite reaction. Aluminium’s oxides and silicones are the most commonly used oxides for buildings. Most others are useless for anything structural.
So it could not have been a thermite reaction.

Now lets go back to burning aluminium and change our view. Do you know what JP-1 is? It’s a jet fuel that has fallen out of use in many places but in essence is 100% pure kerosene. IT WILL NOT BURN if you toss a match in a bowl of it. It will not burn if you hold a lighter flame to the surface of a large pool of it. It will how ever burn if it has a wicking medium, such as newspaper, or if it’s heated to its flash point. The reason is it produces no vapours at room temperature in anywhere near the amount that would be needed for its combustion to start and self sustain. Now what does a wick do? It creates a means of super heating SMALL amounts of the fuel to the vaporising point where the fuel evaporates/boils out of the wick and then can burn with ambient oxygen. In summary you must vaporise the fuel to ignite it. With oil burners for in houses and in jet engines, high-pressure nozzles provide a fine mist of fuel, which can then burn. Vaporising drastically increases the surface area.

Lets look at one more thing before we go on, flour. Flour in a pile will not burn. Flour in the air in a confined space will blow apart reinforced concrete in a violent FAE. The reason? Fire triangle. You need heat, oxygen, and fuel to have a fire (that is commonly toted but incorrect as hydrogen will burn with chlorine, correct would be you need a fuel, and a oxidiser and you need the activational energy eg heat, UV light Etc…) now in a pile flour does not have the surface area to burn with the mere 20% oxygen that is the roughly normal level for ambient air. However if spread through the air each piece becomes sounded by O2 even in its low concentration and can ignite. Now back to our friend Al.

Aluminium is self-anodising as we discussed. It produces a chemically bonded ionic metal oxide in air. This layer under normal conditions prevents further oxidisation. Now lets look at what we need to do to make it burn.

For flash powder germanium or ‘grey’ aluminium is used. This powder is so finely ground that on a cumulative scale, a teaspoon of it most likely is close to half a foot ball field in terms of reactive surface area. If blown into the air it can burn even explode like the flour, if mixed with oxidisers such as potassium perchlorate it will do the same. In the right conditions a pile of it can even be ignited. The reason is surface area. Aluminium does no present enough surface area for oxidisation to become self-sustaining. The layers of oxides that form from its oxidisation unless removed as they form also smoother this reaction. With the air compressor, did you use compressed argon as the propellant for the sandblaster? Did you do it in an entirely enclosed space with a purely inert atmosphere? You were atomising the aluminium with the impact of both air and foreign objects in the form of sand; this would create a cloud of tiny droplets in close proximity with oxygen all around them. Of course they burnt!

Have you ever ground aluminium with an angle grinder? Amazing not even a single spark. Have you ever scrapped the enamel off a pop can and scratched the aluminium? Have you ever used a chainsaw?

Aluminium completely free of oxides such as that made by an angle grinder or by simple cutting/scratching/tearing it does not ignite as shown above. Even pure sodium does not spontaneously ignite in dry air. As for chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc- the engine block is aluminium. Imagine the vibrations in a large block diesel, they are so intense as to produce cavitation in some cases, within the cooling fluid, the aluminium oxide does not even notice it.

So… lets look at your idea the tower falling caused the aluminium from the plane to ignite…

Each plane had around 91,000 litres of fuel. If you dribble the fuel into an air stream at a set rate of about ten ml a second and have it atomises in the air blast then ignite it in a nozzle, you can create temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Think about 91,000 litres on fire. The heat from the fuel present and burning would have been hot enough to boil aluminium. Of course there would have been aluminium oxidising in the flames as it was vaporised and combusted, but god no, it would not have contributed in any meaningful way. As for when the towers fell, you could argue that it was entirely hot enough for steel to have burnt, just looking at the amount of heat that could have been evolved from eh fuel alone.


"I am going to put this into layman's terms.

Since it takes mechanical energy, to cause a nano thermite-mate reaction, basically thermal energy causing the aluminum to expand, causing the oxide to break really fast.

Thank you Dr. Steven Jones for that.

How was all mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse since that is what causes all metal Oxide reactions, in other words what proof would there be that thermite-mate, instead of aluminum brought down the Twin Towers?

Is it unfair to use Dr Steven Joneses work to debunk the conspiracy theorists, is it a fair question?

I have asked it a thousand times and I have always been told by conspiracy theorist that the question is unfair or not based on real Science, what do you Nice intelligent people on here have to say on this?

I am working on the temperature curve this moment, the hotter the aluminum the weaker the bonds in the crystalline structure of the oxide coating, I am working on a mathematical model for the strength of the oxide, at different temperatures."

So in short, there is no such thing as a ‘nano thermite reaction’

Aluminum burning or oxidizing is just that, aluminum oxidizing

The thermite reaction is in many ways like the potassiumperchlorate + aluminum reaction, aluminum gets hot free oxygen from another medium reducing the oxide and being oxidized it’s self.

Mechanical energy causes virtually no chemical reactions on the small scales we experience. For a chemical reaction on the chemical scale you could say that is so, as the molecules must collide with sufficient force to change bonds, on the non atomic scale that is incorrect. Mechanical force eg kinetic energy is the motion of things. When there is an impact, the kinetic energy dissipates. This can be in clearly visible signs such as a pane of glass shattering when hit, and in much less visible changes such as molecules within the objects being acted on, shifting against one and another. Very few substances are activated into chemical reactions by kinetic energy on any earthly scale. Think of mercury of fulminate, nitrocellulose, trinitrotoluene, and ammonium iodide. Notice anything? They are all very unstable self-decomposing substances. Back on the atomic scale, the motion of the atoms that increases the reactivity to create reactions such as burning metal, are all based on the excitations of the individual atoms and molecules. The faster they move the more readily they will react as the more collisions there will be, between the different molecules.

As for how was mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse? Do you remember the dust cloud? The very materials of the tower where shredded to dust and debris, each piece would carry off energy with it.

[Neil MacInnis]

I will add that at work i do a demonstration where i lie on a bed of nails and have a brick broken with a sledge hammer on my chest. the force of the hammer goes into the bits of flying brick saving me from any pain. every time something moves its taking energy with it.

[maccy]

Welcome to the forum Neil!

Can you go back to your first post and edit it so that there are clear line breaks between the paragraphs? It's pretty hard to read as it is.

Thanks

[Neil MacInnis]

Argh there was when I wrote it but it dident transfer when I copied it... it will be done.


...if an admin unlocks it...

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Okay! Science time!

Aluminium oxidises in air with a slightly exothermic reaction until an aluminium oxide coating forms isolating the aluminium from the air. This coat is extremely hard and chemical resistant and blocks all further oxidisation by ambient oxygen. In order to continuous oxidise the aluminium then you can coat it with something such as a mercury paste which would and does dissolve this layer react fresh aluminium then drop the dissolved aluminium oxide repeating this over and over till the aluminium crumbles. Aluminium will not will never, can not burn in ambient air at STP when it is a solid and not in dust form.

Don’t believe me? Well then go hold a match to aluminium foil, try a blow torch try an oxygen torch. The aluminium will never self sustain as the oxide layer puts the fire out in ordinary conditions. Now molten aluminium if sprayed in the air can burn because as it is molten it is highly reactive. Using a sand blaster on it would be sending a jet of air carrying particles with it, into the aluminium. This would lift tiny blobs of Al into he air where it’s already at a temperature that it can burn. The deciding factor is that there is nothing for the oxide to adhere to so it can burn, that being said a crucible of molten aluminium thrown into the air will not burn as its still not a likely thing. The ingot you saw burning was very possibly laced with Mg, which will burn and resemble the burning of aluminium right down to the white smoke and white fire.

Even ultrasonic vibration is not enough to shred the aluminium oxide coating from the surface of solid aluminium its simple to well bonded so no, there is no chance the plane hitting shredded off the oxide coating causing it to ignite explosively, in and of its self. Aeroplane skins are also never pure aluminium on the out side. Its like a pop can, acid rain would etch and damage it. There is a layer of paint, like on pop cans, basically a thin layer of plastic.

Aluminium will burn in fire works and such (think military flash bangs) when it is combined with strong oxidisers and ignited as it is then super heated and bathed in pure radical oxygen.

The thermite reaction is the reducing reaction imposed on a pure metal with a metallic oxide. In thermite black this looks like this

3Fe3O4(s) + 8Al(s) → 4Al2O3(s) + 9Fe(L)

This reaction transfers the oxygen from the iron to the aluminium. It can be created using pure magnesium instead of ground aluminium as well. In terms of the oxides that will work, boron, manganese, chromium, copper, titanium... the list goes on. But there must be an oxygen containing metal oxide for the thermite reaction to take place and there must be a reducing agent. Calcium oxides, sodium oxides, potassium oxide zirconium oxides will not function in the thermite reaction with aluminium, as they are simply to strongly bonded.

As for the space shuttle, an object going 25 times the speed of sound produces huge friction of course. The space shuttle is NOT made of aluminium how ever, its titanium mainly. The titanium when heated to its melting point burns explosively in air with a white flame, this is why titanium is melted with inert gasses such as argon and not in a open crucible like aluminium, in furnaces. Even then look at the space shuttle and say it is mainly Al not Ti, you are talking about an object going Mack 25. The air acts as a non-stop abrasive removing metal not as a solid but as a gas. You are not talking about solid Al you are talking about gaseous Al reacting with oxygen that is super heated as well. You are also talking about plasma forming temperatures not plain boring old impact with a cement building temperatures.

Have you ever taken a look at the plans for aeroplanes? Look at the cubic volume of the shell compared to the mass. Then factor in structural steel things such as the landing gears and the skeleton, then factor in the non metals such as upholstery and foam insulation, then factor in all the non aluminium mechanical things such as fuel tanks and engines (ever seen how much the engines and landing struts for a 767 weighs?) now in looking at the mass when fuelled to take off, almost onehundredforty thousand pounds of the gross weight is fuel alone. When you do all the math you will find that pop cans and aeroplanes have a lot in common. The skin of the aircraft is just that, a thin skin. Most of its thickness is non-metallic padding and insulation. The amount of aluminium is so minimal that it’s not worth considering in terms of a deciding factor in any thermo reactions. there is simply not enough aluminium there to do anything in comparison to the space the aluminium is spread out over.

Now that we have looked at the lack of our first ingredient for a thermite reaction (the reducing agent) lets look at our second. For a thermite reaction there would have had to be a massive supply of oxides. The most comment oxide present would most likely have been manganese... in batteries! Yeah! The second most common oxide would be aluminium, in light bulbs. and we wont bother to mention the silicon oxide in glass and computer chips as that is almost endothermic in the thermite reaction with aluminium, if it can be even started.

There was simple nothing for the aluminium to react with using the thermite reaction. Aluminium’s oxides and silicones are the most commonly used oxides for buildings. Most others are useless for anything structural.
So it could not have been a thermite reaction.

Now lets go back to burning aluminium and change our view. Do you know what JP-1 is? It’s a jet fuel that has fallen out of use in many places but in essence is 100% pure kerosene. IT WILL NOT BURN if you toss a match in a bowl of it. It will not burn if you hold a lighter flame to the surface of a large pool of it. It will how ever burn if it has a wicking medium, such as newspaper, or if it’s heated to its flash point. The reason is it produces no vapours at room temperature in anywhere near the amount that would be needed for its combustion to start and self sustain. Now what does a wick do? It creates a means of super heating SMALL amounts of the fuel to the vaporising point where the fuel evaporates/boils out of the wick and then can burn with ambient oxygen. In summary you must vaporise the fuel to ignite it. With oil burners for in houses and in jet engines, high-pressure nozzles provide a fine mist of fuel, which can then burn. Vaporising drastically increases the surface area.

Lets look at one more thing before we go on, flour. Flour in a pile will not burn. Flour in the air in a confined space will blow apart reinforced concrete in a violent FAE. The reason? Fire triangle. You need heat, oxygen, and fuel to have a fire (that is commonly toted but incorrect as hydrogen will burn with chlorine, correct would be you need a fuel, and a oxidiser and you need the activational energy eg heat, UV light Etc…) now in a pile flour does not have the surface area to burn with the mere 20% oxygen that is the roughly normal level for ambient air. However if spread through the air each piece becomes sounded by O2 even in its low concentration and can ignite. Now back to our friend Al.

Aluminium is self-anodising as we discussed. It produces a chemically bonded ionic metal oxide in air. This layer under normal conditions prevents further oxidisation. Now lets look at what we need to do to make it burn.

For flash powder germanium or ‘grey’ aluminium is used. This powder is so finely ground that on a cumulative scale, a teaspoon of it most likely is close to half a foot ball field in terms of reactive surface area. If blown into the air it can burn even explode like the flour, if mixed with oxidisers such as potassium perchlorate it will do the same. In the right conditions a pile of it can even be ignited. The reason is surface area. Aluminium does no present enough surface area for oxidisation to become self-sustaining. The layers of oxides that form from its oxidisation unless removed as they form also smoother this reaction. With the air compressor, did you use compressed argon as the propellant for the sandblaster? Did you do it in an entirely enclosed space with a purely inert atmosphere? You were atomising the aluminium with the impact of both air and foreign objects in the form of sand; this would create a cloud of tiny droplets in close proximity with oxygen all around them. Of course they burnt!

Have you ever ground aluminium with an angle grinder? Amazing not even a single spark. Have you ever scrapped the enamel off a pop can and scratched the aluminium? Have you ever used a chainsaw?

Aluminium completely free of oxides such as that made by an angle grinder or by simple cutting/scratching/tearing it does not ignite as shown above. Even pure sodium does not spontaneously ignite in dry air. As for chainsaws, lawnmowers, etc- the engine block is aluminium. Imagine the vibrations in a large block diesel, they are so intense as to produce cavitation in some cases, within the cooling fluid, the aluminium oxide does not even notice it.

So… lets look at your idea the tower falling caused the aluminium from the plane to ignite…

Each plane had around 91,000 litres of fuel. If you dribble the fuel into an air stream at a set rate of about ten ml a second and have it atomises in the air blast then ignite it in a nozzle, you can create temperatures hot enough to melt steel. Think about 91,000 litres on fire. The heat from the fuel present and burning would have been hot enough to boil aluminium. Of course there would have been aluminium oxidising in the flames as it was vaporised and combusted, but god no, it would not have contributed in any meaningful way. As for when the towers fell, you could argue that it was entirely hot enough for steel to have burnt, just looking at the amount of heat that could have been evolved from eh fuel alone.


"I am going to put this into layman's terms.

Since it takes mechanical energy, to cause a nano thermite-mate reaction, basically thermal energy causing the aluminum to expand, causing the oxide to break really fast.

Thank you Dr. Steven Jones for that.

How was all mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse since that is what causes all metal Oxide reactions, in other words what proof would there be that thermite-mate, instead of aluminum brought down the Twin Towers?

Is it unfair to use Dr Steven Joneses work to debunk the conspiracy theorists, is it a fair question?

I have asked it a thousand times and I have always been told by conspiracy theorist that the question is unfair or not based on real Science, what do you Nice intelligent people on here have to say on this?

I am working on the temperature curve this moment, the hotter the aluminum the weaker the bonds in the crystalline structure of the oxide coating, I am working on a mathematical model for the strength of the oxide, at different temperatures."

So in short, there is no such thing as a ‘nano thermite reaction’

Aluminum burning or oxidizing is just that, aluminum oxidizing

The thermite reaction is in many ways like the potassiumperchlorate + aluminum reaction, aluminum gets hot free oxygen from another medium reducing the oxide and being oxidized it’s self.

Mechanical energy causes virtually no chemical reactions on the small scales we experience. For a chemical reaction on the chemical scale you could say that is so, as the molecules must collide with sufficient force to change bonds, on the non atomic scale that is incorrect. Mechanical force eg kinetic energy is the motion of things. When there is an impact, the kinetic energy dissipates. This can be in clearly visible signs such as a pane of glass shattering when hit, and in much less visible changes such as molecules within the objects being acted on, shifting against one and another. Very few substances are activated into chemical reactions by kinetic energy on any earthly scale. Think of mercury of fulminate, nitrocellulose, trinitrotoluene, and ammonium iodide. Notice anything? They are all very unstable self-decomposing substances. Back on the atomic scale, the motion of the atoms that increases the reactivity to create reactions such as burning metal, are all based on the excitations of the individual atoms and molecules. The faster they move the more readily they will react as the more collisions there will be, between the different molecules.

As for how was mechanical energy eliminated in the collapse? Do you remember the dust cloud? The very materials of the tower where shredded to dust and debris, each piece would carry off energy with it.


Welcome to the Forum Neil,

Just a clarification though,


How about super heated Aluminum where the oxide coating is molten, who is talking solid Aluminum?

http://www.me.ttu.edu/Home/Research/Center%20for%20Mechanochemistry%20and%20Synthesis% 20of%20New%20Materials/Research/Energetic%20Materials.php

http://www.springerlink.com/content/48265228q2877407/

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17100316

Actually I thought it was mechanical action compromising the oxide layer on aluminum over enough surface area, that caused the Aluminum super heating reactions that I have been witnessing.

You win what do I know I have only been buying and reading research papers form competent universities. Also spending my own money buying materials to do the research, all aluminum reactions have one thing it common the Oxide layer has to be compromised. So the electron bonds in the outer shell of the Atoms Al, and O, can react. That is the What I was referring to.


I know about molecular bonding, and the Chemistry thank you, my question was directly in reference to the Oxide layer on molten aluminum.
NOT SOLID.

You might want to read a little more about what I have been doing.

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=22618

[Neil MacInnis]

In molten aluminum for combustion to take place the oxide layer is irrelevant. if you want to learn about aluminum burning as a liquid more simply look at metal casting. Aluminum when liquid will not burn with the iron in flesh or meat, its actually reducing the hydrogen oxide. In meat and such the amount of iron is so impossible small that its almost beyond belief. Also it’s not iron oxide but complex iron/organic molecules

If you get right down to is and want to talk about hot as hell, the sprinklers in the buildings would have been pouring water onto molten aluminum and burning pools of liquid kerosene. This would have cause the jet fuel to flash to vapor burning much more intensely, and yes, it would have cause any liquid aluminum to ignite and burn with explosive sustained intensity as long as all the ingredients were available. However once again the amount of aluminum there is very small compared to the volume of fuel.


if the research you have done comes to within a fifth of what i have done in the past I would give you my hat, the nano thermite reactions are not thermite reactions on a nano scale they are thermite reactions using nano particals. they need laboratory conditions to create such insanely fine particles. liquids DO NOT factor into this. they are talking about pulverising or creating through disposition, microparticles who are only a few thousand atoms as opposed to a few million. the surface area of these would be such that it would enable a hotter faster reaction. however hey read it again and look at the conditions needed for these reactions and the means of creating the nanoparticles.


before you go esoteric look at simplicity right? i have seen kerosene fires melt fire bricks i have seen kerosene fires melt pure aluminum oxide, hell i have seen kerosene fires melt refractory that was listed as being heat proof up to 3000F with absolutely no problem, it then melted the granite and the dirt and the yard beneath all of this.

[Gravy]

Welcome aboard, Neil. Thanks for your contributions.

I will add that at work i do a demonstration where i lie on a bed of nails and have a brick broken with a sledge hammer on my chest. the force of the hammer goes into the bits of flying brick saving me from any pain. every time something moves its taking energy with it.You don't happen to work here (http://www.coneyisland.com/sideshow.shtml), do you? :D

[Neil MacInnis]

No though that looks like fun... I work at a science center in Canada and we do a bed of nails show. for this the 'victim' lies on a bed of nails and gets a cinder block broken on his chest with a sledge hammer.

thanks for the welcome :)

[TjW]

<Considerable snippage by TjW>

Aeroplane skins are also never pure aluminium on the out side. Its like a pop can, acid rain would etch and damage it. There is a layer of paint, like on pop cans, basically a thin layer of plastic.

This is just exactly backwards. Aircraft aluminum alloys such as 7075 and 2024 usually have a layer of virtually pure aluminum on the surface. You might want to Google Alclad aluminum. The pure aluminum oxidizes and protects the stronger alloy.

Paint does add another layer of protection, but it can also add considerable weight. Not all aluminum aircraft are painted.

[Neil MacInnis]

not all are painted btu virtualy all are. when was the last time you saw a silvery colored jet liner? ALclad aluminum was all the rage pre 1920 but around 1930-1940 a huge amount of primers that would do the same thing as good as, or better then pure aluminum, were created.

the layer of Al in Alclad aluminum is so insanly thin that polishing the air craft would and does actualy result in the rapid removal of the pure Al and render the baser aluminum exposed. many Alclad planes that still exist, if not all, are clear coated.

[Gravy]

not all are painted btu virtualy all are. when was the last time you saw a silvery colored jet liner?To save weight American has retained the silver fuselage and wings, although the livery is looking a bit funky on the newer planes like the A300 with its composite tail.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

In molten aluminum for combustion to take place the oxide layer is irrelevant. if you want to learn about aluminum burning as a liquid more simply look at metal casting. Aluminum when liquid will not burn with the iron in flesh or meat, its actually reducing the hydrogen oxide. In meat and such the amount of iron is so impossible small that its almost beyond belief. Also it’s not iron oxide but complex iron/organic molecules

If you get right down to is and want to talk about hot as hell, the sprinklers in the buildings would have been pouring water onto molten aluminum and burning pools of liquid kerosene. This would have cause the jet fuel to flash to vapor burning much more intensely, and yes, it would have cause any liquid aluminum to ignite and burn with explosive sustained intensity as long as all the ingredients were available. However once again the amount of aluminum there is very small compared to the volume of fuel.


if the research you have done comes to within a fifth of what i have done in the past I would give you my hat, the nano thermite reactions are not thermite reactions on a nano scale they are thermite reactions using nano particals. they need laboratory conditions to create such insanely fine particles. liquids DO NOT factor into this. they are talking about pulverising or creating through disposition, microparticles who are only a few thousand atoms as opposed to a few million. the surface area of these would be such that it would enable a hotter faster reaction. however hey read it again and look at the conditions needed for these reactions and the means of creating the nanoparticles.


before you go esoteric look at simplicity right? i have seen kerosene fires melt fire bricks i have seen kerosene fires melt pure aluminum oxide, hell i have seen kerosene fires melt refractory that was listed as being heat proof up to 3000F with absolutely no problem, it then melted the granite and the dirt and the yard beneath all of this.

I agree that kerosene can reach high temps If properly Oxygenated, and water would have spread the fuel out and a vapor could form but that would not necessarily have increased the temperature, you still need Oxygen. Kerosene can also not produce temperates near those of Aluminum, unless a form of pure oxygen is used, so tell me if the oxide is Irrelevant why can I burn Molten aluminum in air, producing 2800c over 4000f?
Though the continued action, of wave form energy up on the oxide coating?

Ever heard of sono chemistry?

Nano particles react so fast because the heat expands the Aluminum Oxide coating so fast, do to the particles small size, and because the oxide is present that is why aluminum only burns in sheets and Powders in solid form.
The oxide has to be compromised over sufficient surface area.
I know what nano particles are, and that they can only be created under lab conditions. I also know that they involved Nano aluminum particulates
Nano is a reference to size-nano meter.

Agreed that I also got a hydrogen reaction, but when I switched to a meat- flesh High in iron Oxide I did get a thermite reaction after the water was rendered off from the heat.

There is a big difference between 3000f and 4000f, and the heat values change dramatically.

PS. I have seen intense Kerosene Fires too in fact Kerosene and high sulfur diesel were the main fuels that I used. Besides reactive metals.

Do you have any papers on your research you can point me to?

Would it not matter what locations the Aluminum was at in the buildings, and I have not just been looking at Aluminum, but all potential metal Oxidizing metal reactions.

What would happen if I hit the Aluminum with Lime stone dust Calcium carbonate, releasing CO2?

What would happen if I sand blasted molten aluminum in air while flowing, at over 1000c with Aluminum Oxide powder?

If kerosene can reach temperatures of three 3000f, would not Iron-steel burn at those temperatures in an intense jet burner effect?

Sorry if I am asking to may questions, However what you are saying goes directly against he results of the experiment I preformed, because if you do not damage the oxide coating no reaction takes place, because the Oxygen can not reach the metals unless the oxide is super heated, or disrupted in some way.

This whole debate started because people said he fuels in the building could not cause the results observed.
I am simply trying to figure out what could have.
PS. in all the reactions I was using molten aluminum, not solid like in a chainsaw engine Block which is cooled or in a diesel engine, which never gets above 300f except in the combustion chamber. Those analogies have nothing to do with anything I was refering to.

[Neil MacInnis]

My references to engines were in terms of vibrations on the oxide layers, which you as noted is of no note, as you are talking about liquid aluminum.
I would love to see a video of your meat experiments, I am not saying I do not believe you, rather I am intensely curious as to what the reaction would have looked like.
The reaction I was talking about with aluminum and meat was a thermite like beak down of water to create aluminum oxide and hydrogen gas. The same as magnesium does but in a much more easily creatable means.


Sono chemistry is intensely interesting, yes I have heard of it.


What research are you talking about that you would want papers on?


With the limestone and aluminum as such would come from the concrete, for the concrete to have begun decomposing the iron would have reached the critical temperature when it becomes plastic, thus the temperatures would already have had to exist.


I think I approached this from the wrong angle.



Let me start over. Aluminum reactions such as the ones you are talking about are unlikely to have done anything of note. Aluminum as a liquid would tend to flow into huge pools and these would tend to reduce their combustibility to the point where ambient air would not burn them. To have the aluminum at a high enough heat to react with concrete and such then you would have to be at steel melting temperatures, as well as at temperatures when the oxide layer would melt on the liquid aluminum. At these temperatures the concrete would be converting to an anhydrous form and turning to dust while the steel would be as easily deformed as warm butter if not melting and burning. Interestingly the water being forced out of the concrete could even possible under the right circumstances combine with the aluminum exothermically giving off hydrogen and a lot of heat…


Have you ever done foundry work? You said you worked with molten aluminum and made it as well as seeing an aluminum mill.
It is entirely possible to have pools of shiny silver liquid aluminum that have no oxide once you skim them, and it will not burn, but interestingly look at what happens if you heat a mixture of 50/50 Mg/Al. Note the oxide layer does nothing in this case to stop oxidisation (this is a total aside and has nothing to do with anything).


If you look at much of the data they base their affirmations that the building could not have been hot enough on, well.. They are miss reading/using the data. In one test with burning office furniture the temperature at the roof went up to only a mere 1100F or something. I can find out the sources and exact info for what I am talking about if you wish. But consider that the fire its self and materials being heated directly by the fire would have been hotter by far. It’s a fair bet to say any aluminum in the fire its self would have readily melted.


I have heard talk of a test done by the USA where fine aluminum was blown in pure oxygen through a huge zirconium oxide nozzle to produce a mock atomic explosion to study the physics behind such hot and intense conflagrations... how ever I have never seen anything to show that this is true. However look at the USA’s favorite toy, H6 much of its power is derived from its aluminum constituents being oxidized. So yes aluminum will burn intensely hot. I am not arguing with you on that. The means of making it burn this hot are what I am arguing about.


I have topped heats of over 3000 with kerosene with no oxygen enrichment and only a very weak vacuum cleaner for a air source. I have even used liquid zinc as a fuel with forced air and made self-sustaining flames (bad fumes off that of course…)


what I was talking about with the water was two fold. A puddle of hot liquid oil can be atomisised by water if the water is flashing into vapor within it creating a fine mist. This creates a far more intense fire evolving heat faster then it would other wise. Any aluminum that was at the heats that would be needed for it to be molten, never mind its oxides molten, would burn explosively with water. This goes back to my first paragraph. Hydrogen oxide is just like a metallic oxide is more then a few ways. When molten aluminum mixes with it, the heat produced coupled with the hydrogen combing with ambient oxygen can do amazing damage and produce amazing amounts of heat. So yes if there was a pool of molten aluminum in there that was say being melted by the kerosene fire then flowing down pooling and having the water form the sprinkler fall on it, you could get a conflagration of intense heat and light.


The whole thing is however with thermite reactions with aluminum and other metals is simply this, look at the activational energies. The melting point for aluminum is 1220 F and that is pure aluminum, aircraft alloys could be higher, or more unlikely, lower.


To have a thermite reaction with nearly anything-other then water (which is I should reiterated, so I don’t get misunderstood, is not in and of its self technically a thermite reaction) takes heats of over 2000F
For more esoteric reactions such as the theoretical one between silicon oxide and aluminum it’s much much higher. Even aluminum and iron oxide need heats of around 3500F to 4000F.


For the point that these reactions become feasible to be reached, the steel and concrete both would have had to pass their respective fail points causing the towers to fall already.
The only places where it would have been this hot would have been at the main fire sites in the buildings.
What I am saying is not going against your experiments. You do have to agitate the aluminum. My point is its not merely the oxide layer, its the surface area. A pool of aluminum does not have the surface area to combust, it’s not reactive enough. That is its not until it gets to super hot heats, such as the point when its oxide layer would melt. You can skim off a pool of very hot (yellow heat) aluminum and it will stay very clean and shiny for a surprisingly long period of time. Agitating it via a sandblaster increases the surface area, if it was hot enough the sloshing and rippling from sound waves via your music will apparently do the same.


So agreed that aluminum will, can, burn very hot. How ever as you said about the kerosene, it has to be properly oxygenated.

My point is simply this, the heat and situations that would cause the aluminum to burn would have already destroyed the building and the oxygen needed for the aluminum to burn would be, being gobbled up by the hydrocarbons as fast as it entered the burn area thus making it unlikely the aluminum would be able to burn. The possibility of a oxygen source other then air, such as water makes it a possibility it would have burnt.


But if you get right down to it and back to your original thing, when they say that the kerosene could not have burnt hot enough to have done what was done, well how could explosives or thermite bombs have survived being dosed in kerosene then ignited? When they point to the bottom level explosions, then why the heck would the building fall from the middle if the bottom was being destructed? Some one needs to tell them about Ockham’s razor!


As for sand blasting aluminum that is at 1000C well.. If you do we might not ever hear back from you…


My only other thing about anything thermite, or aluminum burning would be, that the reactions of aluminum burning or thermite at work produce ultraviolet light they are so hot. If it was the case that thermite or aluminum was burning in any large enough to make a impact amount in the towers, then it would have looked like the sun was shining out from the broken window pains. Think of your radiation burn and the welding helmet.


More interesting maybe if you can heat the aluminum to around 3600 F then sand blast it with the black sandblasting sand made from iron foundry slag. It’s mainly iron oxides. But if you did that… then I’d be sure we would never hear back form you…

[stundie]

My references to engines were in terms of vibrations on the oxide layers, which you as noted is of no note, as you are talking about liquid aluminum.
I would love to see a video of your meat experiments, I am not saying I do not believe you, rather I am intensely curious as to what the reaction would have looked like.
The reaction I was talking about with aluminum and meat was a thermite like beak down of water to create aluminum oxide and hydrogen gas. The same as magnesium does but in a much more easily creatable means.


Sono chemistry is intensely interesting, yes I have heard of it.


What research are you talking about that you would want papers on?


With the limestone and aluminum as such would come from the concrete, for the concrete to have begun decomposing the iron would have reached the critical temperature when it becomes plastic, thus the temperatures would already have had to exist.


I think I approached this from the wrong angle.



Let me start over. Aluminum reactions such as the ones you are talking about are unlikely to have done anything of note. Aluminum as a liquid would tend to flow into huge pools and these would tend to reduce their combustibility to the point where ambient air would not burn them. To have the aluminum at a high enough heat to react with concrete and such then you would have to be at steel melting temperatures, as well as at temperatures when the oxide layer would melt on the liquid aluminum. At these temperatures the concrete would be converting to an anhydrous form and turning to dust while the steel would be as easily deformed as warm butter if not melting and burning. Interestingly the water being forced out of the concrete could even possible under the right circumstances combine with the aluminum exothermically giving off hydrogen and a lot of heat…


Have you ever done foundry work? You said you worked with molten aluminum and made it as well as seeing an aluminum mill.
It is entirely possible to have pools of shiny silver liquid aluminum that have no oxide once you skim them, and it will not burn, but interestingly look at what happens if you heat a mixture of 50/50 Mg/Al. Note the oxide layer does nothing in this case to stop oxidisation (this is a total aside and has nothing to do with anything).


If you look at much of the data they base their affirmations that the building could not have been hot enough on, well.. They are miss reading/using the data. In one test with burning office furniture the temperature at the roof went up to only a mere 1100F or something. I can find out the sources and exact info for what I am talking about if you wish. But consider that the fire its self and materials being heated directly by the fire would have been hotter by far. It’s a fair bet to say any aluminum in the fire its self would have readily melted.


I have heard talk of a test done by the USA where fine aluminum was blown in pure oxygen through a huge zirconium oxide nozzle to produce a mock atomic explosion to study the physics behind such hot and intense conflagrations... how ever I have never seen anything to show that this is true. However look at the USA’s favorite toy, H6 much of its power is derived from its aluminum constituents being oxidized. So yes aluminum will burn intensely hot. I am not arguing with you on that. The means of making it burn this hot are what I am arguing about.


I have topped heats of over 3000 with kerosene with no oxygen enrichment and only a very weak vacuum cleaner for a air source. I have even used liquid zinc as a fuel with forced air and made self-sustaining flames (bad fumes off that of course…)


what I was talking about with the water was two fold. A puddle of hot liquid oil can be atomisised by water if the water is flashing into vapor within it creating a fine mist. This creates a far more intense fire evolving heat faster then it would other wise. Any aluminum that was at the heats that would be needed for it to be molten, never mind its oxides molten, would burn explosively with water. This goes back to my first paragraph. Hydrogen oxide is just like a metallic oxide is more then a few ways. When molten aluminum mixes with it, the heat produced coupled with the hydrogen combing with ambient oxygen can do amazing damage and produce amazing amounts of heat. So yes if there was a pool of molten aluminum in there that was say being melted by the kerosene fire then flowing down pooling and having the water form the sprinkler fall on it, you could get a conflagration of intense heat and light.


The whole thing is however with thermite reactions with aluminum and other metals is simply this, look at the activational energies. The melting point for aluminum is 1220 F and that is pure aluminum, aircraft alloys could be higher, or more unlikely, lower.


To have a thermite reaction with nearly anything-other then water (which is I should reiterated, so I don’t get misunderstood, is not in and of its self technically a thermite reaction) takes heats of over 2000F
For more esoteric reactions such as the theoretical one between silicon oxide and aluminum it’s much much higher. Even aluminum and iron oxide need heats of around 3500F to 4000F.


For the point that these reactions become feasible to be reached, the steel and concrete both would have had to pass their respective fail points causing the towers to fall already.
The only places where it would have been this hot would have been at the main fire sites in the buildings.
What I am saying is not going against your experiments. You do have to agitate the aluminum. My point is its not merely the oxide layer, its the surface area. A pool of aluminum does not have the surface area to combust, it’s not reactive enough. That is its not until it gets to super hot heats, such as the point when its oxide layer would melt. You can skim off a pool of very hot (yellow heat) aluminum and it will stay very clean and shiny for a surprisingly long period of time. Agitating it via a sandblaster increases the surface area, if it was hot enough the sloshing and rippling from sound waves via your music will apparently do the same.


So agreed that aluminum will, can, burn very hot. How ever as you said about the kerosene, it has to be properly oxygenated.

My point is simply this, the heat and situations that would cause the aluminum to burn would have already destroyed the building and the oxygen needed for the aluminum to burn would be, being gobbled up by the hydrocarbons as fast as it entered the burn area thus making it unlikely the aluminum would be able to burn. The possibility of a oxygen source other then air, such as water makes it a possibility it would have burnt.


But if you get right down to it and back to your original thing, when they say that the kerosene could not have burnt hot enough to have done what was done, well how could explosives or thermite bombs have survived being dosed in kerosene then ignited? When they point to the bottom level explosions, then why the heck would the building fall from the middle if the bottom was being destructed? Some one needs to tell them about Ockham’s razor!


As for sand blasting aluminum that is at 1000C well.. If you do we might not ever hear back from you…


My only other thing about anything thermite, or aluminum burning would be, that the reactions of aluminum burning or thermite at work produce ultraviolet light they are so hot. If it was the case that thermite or aluminum was burning in any large enough to make a impact amount in the towers, then it would have looked like the sun was shining out from the broken window pains. Think of your radiation burn and the welding helmet.


More interesting maybe if you can heat the aluminum to around 3600 F then sand blast it with the black sandblasting sand made from iron foundry slag. It’s mainly iron oxides. But if you did that… then I’d be sure we would never hear back form you…


Hi Neil,

Welcome and thank you for you fascinating post regarding this subject. I have made references the molten metal which was found at the bottom of the collapsed with other JREFers and the only answers I seem to get are:-

A) Its been debunker (With no reference or evidence that shows this)
B) Its the aluminuim and kersone from the jet(Which doesn't explain how the tempratures were hot enough to melt the steels beams)
C) Its a pit fire, did you know pitfires get hot.
D) There were no fires! (even though there is plenty of evidence and witness accounts to show otherwise)

I'm glad that someone as manage to explain scientifically that this nano thermite reaction is impossible. I'm not a scientist but the explanations do not add up.

I will warn you, that because your explanation doesn't fit in with the offical story or the debunkers versions, you may like me, maybe labelled a conspiracy theorists, even though I would never consider myself one! Its not like I believe in the Roswell incident or a space beam was used on WTC.

So thank you again and please keep posting to keep the debate alive. Who knows maybe we might get a proper investigation as to what happened on 9/11. :)

stundie

[PerryLogan]

Why bother? Like the investigations before it, it would find that 9/11 was not an inside job. The Truthers would then declare it a whitewash on some pretext, then go on truckin. We can save time and money by debunking it over and over again in forums like this one.

By the way, here are some real structural engineers talking about the fall of the towers:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm
(http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm)
Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html)
Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/
(http://www.asce.org/responds/)
More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
YET MORE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.newhaven.edu/show.asp?durki=1185
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
(http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes)
Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers. They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Outreach/Conferences/wtc.htm

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/)
A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse
(http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse)
Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
Oh, what the heck. Here's some more...

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ (http://www.rit.edu/%7Esmo5024/papers/wtc/)
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final%20NCSTAC%202004%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html
(http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html)
This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html)
This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html

[stundie]

Why bother? Like the investigations before it, it would find that 9/11 was not an inside job. The Truthers would then declare it a whitewash on some pretext, then go on truckin. We can save time and money by debunking it over and over again in forums like this one.

By the way, here are some real structural engineers talking about the fall of the towers:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm
(http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm)
Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html)
Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/
(http://www.asce.org/responds/)
More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
YET MORE:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.newhaven.edu/show.asp?durki=1185
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
(http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JENMDT000128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes)
Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers. They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Outreach/Conferences/wtc.htm

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
(http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/)
A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse
(http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis%20of%20Collapse)
Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
Oh, what the heck. Here's some more...

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ (http://www.rit.edu/%7Esmo5024/papers/wtc/)
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final%20NCSTAC%202004%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html
(http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html)
This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html)
This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html


Please stick to the original thread, because these things have a habit off going off on a tangent!


The question that Chainsaw asked seems to have been summed up extremely well by Neil. So unless you have nothing more to add?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My references to engines were in terms of vibrations on the oxide layers, which you as noted is of no note, as you are talking about liquid aluminum.
I would love to see a video of your meat experiments, I am not saying I do not believe you, rather I am intensely curious as to what the reaction would have looked like.
The reaction I was talking about with aluminum and meat was a thermite like beak down of water to create aluminum oxide and hydrogen gas. The same as magnesium does but in a much more easily creatable means.


Sono chemistry is intensely interesting, yes I have heard of it.
Then you know that it relies on sound and ultra sound to break down the Oxide layer on molten and only on molten metals to make them more reactive.

What research are you talking about that you would want papers on?
Any you have done on the subject of Aluminum Oxidation in fires.

With the limestone and aluminum as such would come from the concrete, for the concrete to have begun decomposing the iron would have reached the critical temperature when it becomes plastic, thus the temperatures would already have had to exist.
AS you pointed out, the temperatures produced by kerosene are enough to produce 850c. And steam and water were though out the building.

I think I approached this from the wrong angle.
I think that you may have.


Let me start over. Aluminum reactions such as the ones you are talking about are unlikely to have done anything of note. Aluminum as a liquid would tend to flow into huge pools and these would tend to reduce their combustibility to the point where ambient air would not burn them. To have the aluminum at a high enough heat to react with concrete and such then you would have to be at steel melting temperatures, as well as at temperatures when the oxide layer would melt on the liquid aluminum. At these temperatures the concrete would be converting to an anhydrous form and turning to dust while the steel would be as easily deformed as warm butter if not melting and burning. Interestingly the water being forced out of the concrete could even possible under the right circumstances combine with the aluminum exothermically giving off hydrogen and a lot of heat…

That is one of he things I thought of, as well as the water and steam present in the buildings.

Have you ever done foundry work? You said you worked with molten aluminum and made it as well as seeing an aluminum mill.
It is entirely possible to have pools of shiny silver liquid aluminum that have no oxide once you skim them, and it will not burn, but interestingly look at what happens if you heat a mixture of 50/50 Mg/Al. Note the oxide layer does nothing in this case to stop oxidisation (this is a total aside and has nothing to do with anything).
How do you produce aluminum with out a thin oxide layer in an oxygen atmosphere?
You can produce Aluminum without an oxide layer in an atmosphere of Nitrogen or another inert gas but not in an Oxygen atmosphere.
IN an Oxygen atmosphere aluminum burns into Aluminum oxide Almost instantaneously, even a small nano layer would protect the aluminum it is a physical impossibility.


If you look at much of the data they base their affirmations that the building could not have been hot enough on, well.. They are miss reading/using the data. In one test with burning office furniture the temperature at the roof went up to only a mere 1100F or something. I can find out the sources and exact info for what I am talking about if you wish. But consider that the fire its self and materials being heated directly by the fire would have been hotter by far. It’s a fair bet to say any aluminum in the fire its self would have readily melted.
Why do you think I am a Cter, I believe the building was hot enough, I am only looking into the experiments of Dr. Steven Jones did you read his original paper? He makes Aluminum reactions virtually impossible in the towers. He could not even get a hydrogen reaction.

I have heard talk of a test done by the USA where fine aluminum was blown in pure oxygen through a huge zirconium oxide nozzle to produce a mock atomic explosion to study the physics behind such hot and intense conflagrations... how ever I have never seen anything to show that this is true. However look at the USA’s favorite toy, H6 much of its power is derived from its aluminum constituents being oxidized. So yes aluminum will burn intensely hot. I am not arguing with you on that. The means of making it burn this hot are what I am arguing about.

I read the paper on that test it was to improve the efficiency of rocket engines for the shuttle, not for a mock atomic explosion. That is a separate test, of thermite to simulate reactor melt down, or the test using aluminum and TNT, to simulate a small Nuclear device.
It tested the maximum possible Oxygen temperature and trust that could be provided by Aluminum propellants in a pure oxygen environment. I believe if you check with NASA you might find it, it was also in some of the Science Journals. You might try googling NASA Aluminum propellants test Pure Oxygen and find it that is what I did. I do not see it now It might have been removed form the server.http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?No=60&Ne=35&N=4294944335&Ns=ArchiveName%7C0

I have topped heats of over 3000 with kerosene with no oxygen enrichment and only a very weak vacuum cleaner for a air source. I have even used liquid zinc as a fuel with forced air and made self-sustaining flames (bad fumes off that of course…)
I feel for you I have done the same with my small shop vacuum, forced oxidation to increase the temperature level of the burning fuel to simulate the jet burner effect the fumes made me sick for a while my respirator leaked allowing some of the fumes in.

what I was talking about with the water was two fold. A puddle of hot liquid oil can be atomisised by water if the water is flashing into vapor within it creating a fine mist. This creates a far more intense fire evolving heat faster then it would other wise. Any aluminum that was at the heats that would be needed for it to be molten, never mind its oxides molten, would burn explosively with water. This goes back to my first paragraph. Hydrogen oxide is just like a metallic oxide is more then a few ways. When molten aluminum mixes with it, the heat produced coupled with the hydrogen combing with ambient oxygen can do amazing damage and produce amazing amounts of heat. So yes if there was a pool of molten aluminum in there that was say being melted by the kerosene fire then flowing down pooling and having the water form the sprinkler fall on it, you could get a conflagration of intense heat and light.
I agree on that, I have done that in an experiment with diesel fuel, the heat was so hot that the rising heat burned the black carbon though the smoke and consumed all the oxygen putting out the diesel. The reactions is similar to a flour explosion.

The whole thing is however with thermite reactions with aluminum and other metals is simply this, look at the activational energies. The melting point for aluminum is 1220 F and that is pure aluminum, aircraft alloys could be higher, or more unlikely, lower.
Agreed but since 1000C temperatures were observed in the towers, that is not a problem. A jet burner-Chimney effect in the towers could have produced temperatures with kerosene in the range of 1800c easy.

To have a thermite reaction with nearly anything-other then water (which is I should reiterated, so I don’t get misunderstood, is not in and of its self technically a thermite reaction) takes heats of over 2000F
For more esoteric reactions such as the theoretical one between silicon oxide and aluminum it’s much much higher. Even aluminum and iron oxide need heats of around 3500F to 4000F.

2054°C actuarially, unless you can compromise the oxide layer continuously. since that is the temperature that the oxide becomes molten.


For the point that these reactions become feasible to be reached, the steel and concrete both would have had to pass their respective fail points causing the towers to fall already.
The only places where it would have been this hot would have been at the main fire sites in the buildings.
Exactly the fires were multi story in the central core, where the greatest concentration of aluminum was, do to the mechanicals running up the core, and the planes impacts with the core columns.
What I am saying is not going against your experiments. You do have to agitate the aluminum. My point is its not merely the oxide layer, its the surface area. A pool of aluminum does not have the surface area to combust, it’s not reactive enough. That is its not until it gets to super hot heats, such as the point when its oxide layer would melt. You can skim off a pool of very hot (yellow heat) aluminum and it will stay very clean and shiny for a surprisingly long period of time. Agitating it via a sandblaster increases the surface area, if it was hot enough the sloshing and rippling from sound waves via your music will apparently do the same.
Exactly, the more breaks created in the oxide layer the more, the material reacts, the more heat produced with each reaction the more likely the Aluminum is to super heat. That is exactly what he tests have shown, and I have used the scientific method religiously.

So agreed that aluminum will, can, burn very hot. How ever as you said about the kerosene, it has to be properly oxygenated.
That I agree on completely I was only trying to find the method of oxidation.
My point is simply this, the heat and situations that would cause the aluminum to burn would have already destroyed the building and the oxygen needed for the aluminum to burn would be, being gobbled up by the hydrocarbons as fast as it entered the burn area thus making it unlikely the aluminum would be able to burn. The possibility of a oxygen source other then air, such as water makes it a possibility it would have burnt.
Hydrocarbons produce Carbon Dioxide, aluminum also reacts with carbon dioxide, not quite as strongly as with atmospheric air but quite strong.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3400430

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maik/dopc/2005/00000405/F0030001/00000068

I even bought a compressed gas cylinder of Carbon Dioxide from airgas and tried it.

But if you get right down to it and back to your original thing, when they say that the kerosene could not have burnt hot enough to have done what was done, well how could explosives or thermite bombs have survived being dosed in kerosene then ignited? When they point to the bottom level explosions, then why the heck would the building fall from the middle if the bottom was being destructed? Some one needs to tell them about Ockham’s razor!
I know I have tested the scenario, and the thermites do not survive the heat is nothing the energy of sound waves on the perfect solid sound conductor shatters the oxide allowing the oxide to react, thermates may make a slight difference but I do not see how since they react the same in the test I have done.

As for sand blasting aluminum that is at 1000C well.. If you do we might not ever hear back from you…
Already did it, to late, right now all that is left of me is a charred lump of none reactive elements.:D
I used first dry concrete powder that gave off carbon dioxide thought the quick lime process, heating above 820c, and reacted to strong to the Aluminum to be safe I created a small Volcanic like flow in air.
The aluminum Oxide was much safer, it only used the Oxygen in air, and only produced a small amount of super heated particles because the oxidation components were limited.

My only other thing about anything thermite, or aluminum burning would be, that the reactions of aluminum burning or thermite at work produce ultraviolet light they are so hot. If it was the case that thermite or aluminum was burning in any large enough to make a impact amount in the towers, then it would have looked like the sun was shining out from the broken window pains. Think of your radiation burn and the welding helmet.

I know my eyes are still damaged from an intense super heated Sono Chemical aluminum fireball expanding in air consuming oxygen as it expanded. I have patches in my vision that still have not gone away a year later, even though I was using the darkest welding lens known.
That is exactly my point the fires had to be hot enough to burn aluminum at some point during the collapse, and the only place Aluminum could not have been seen was in the central core.

More interesting maybe if you can heat the aluminum to around 3600 F then sand blast it with the black sandblasting sand made from iron foundry slag. It’s mainly iron oxides. But if you did that… then I’d be sure we would never hear back form you…


Actually I did do that as well, I no longer exist. I however used pure black iron Oxide I never want to try that again though.

PS. It is not as dangerous as molten iron Oxide inclusions, at 1585C, triggered by intense sound energy. That has definitely got to be the nuttiest thing I have ever done.

http://chainsawsanders.com/donottrythisathome.jpg

A small sono chemical reaction inside of molten aluminum at 700c,

http://chainsawsanders.com/notpossible.JPG

Notice the torch is not lit, it was only used to heat the aluminum till molten, the sound was generated though the pan by a device attached directly to the pan.

You should look into sono chemistry it simply would add a new level to your research.

The reaction actually took place under the outer oxide layer.

PS. We have a soft sandstone, around here, and the bed of nails block trick works better with it than with a concrete block because it shatters into smaller pieces absorbing more of the impact stresses. I used to do that trick too, as part of a side show act, but my shoulder is bad and it hurts it when I lay on the nails.

[maccy]

Hi Neil,

Welcome and thank you for you fascinating post regarding this subject. I have made references the molten metal which was found at the bottom of the collapsed with other JREFers and the only answers I seem to get are:-

A) Its been debunker (With no reference or evidence that shows this)
B) Its the aluminuim and kersone from the jet(Which doesn't explain how the tempratures were hot enough to melt the steels beams)
C) Its a pit fire, did you know pitfires get hot.
D) There were no fires! (even though there is plenty of evidence and witness accounts to show otherwise)

I'm glad that someone as manage to explain scientifically that this nano thermite reaction is impossible. I'm not a scientist but the explanations do not add up.

I will warn you, that because your explanation doesn't fit in with the offical story or the debunkers versions, you may like me, maybe labelled a conspiracy theorists, even though I would never consider myself one! Its not like I believe in the Roswell incident or a space beam was used on WTC.

So thank you again and please keep posting to keep the debate alive. Who knows maybe we might get a proper investigation as to what happened on 9/11. :)

stundie

stundie, I think crazy chainsaw is talking about the possibility that the kinetic energy of the falling buildings may have acted on the aluminium in the planes and the towers to generate a thermite reaction. I don't think either chainsaw or neil believe that thermite was planted in the towers in order to cut through the core columns.

Crazy chainsaw's point is that even if Jones could prove a thermite reaction he would also have to prove that this reactions wasn't the natural result of the building falling down.

The four points that you list in your post misrepresent the answers you have been given about molten metal, once again.

I'm going to copy your post into this this thread, which would be a better place to discuss underground fires and molten metal:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65353

I suggest you read the whole of the thread before commenting further.

For reference, here are chainsaw's posts on this from another thread:

I just sent this email to Dr Fetzer, I do not expect a reply!

I will be shocked if I get one.

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

Since it is necessary to eliminate all mechanical energy in the collapse of the towers to prevent Aluminum+Oxygen reactions form causing 2800c temperatures in the collapse, how did the scholars show the collapse never happened in the physical universe?

Motion, mechanical energy is the key to all endothermic reactions involving all reactive metals, Even nano thermate compounds, and super explosives liquid thermite like compounds!

http://chainsawsanders.com/donottrythisathome.jpg

http://chainsawsanders.com/thermitea.JPG

PS. did you know you can use a torch head, and compressed air as well as a lump of cannel coal to make an effective display of burning Iron? The Acetylene is turn off on this torch, it is just connected to my air compressor.

One lump of cannel coal that I lit with a match was all it took, to heat the iron to and to burn though it. Sorry but since I was heating it from below, it got more energetic than a Standard torch or Oxygen lance!

http://chainsawsanders.com/Sparking.jpg

Please I am just a simple man with barely, a high school Diploma, I am having a hard time figuring out why I, someone experienced with thermite, and burning, melting, and welding these materials can do things that Scientists can not!

PS. I can repeat these effects at will anytime anyone wishes to see them, the most interesting so far is sand blasting aluminum with aluminum Oxide, and having an Aluminum+Oxygen reaction in air, it would seem that the strength of the oxide coating on Aluminum is dependent on the energy used to break the molecular bonding of the Oxide crystals themselves, and the physical energy decreases as the temperature rises, at a constant

I have to disagree thermite is less plausible, because Dr. Jones has practically debunked it himself !
Once he specified nano thermite I knew the way to debunk the theories.
It was always a matter of an energy source.

I think the break up is because people are doubting Dr. Jones, and looking for new theories to save the movement.

The problem with Dr Jones theories is that Aluminum is his fuel source, and the complexity of the building means he has two options to prove his theory, find a timing device partly intact, or prove that the trigger to natural Aluminum+Oxygen reactions was not in the buildings.
In other words, he has to find the device that triggered the thermate, or disprove the towers ever fell.
Because the fall of the towers alone could cause more energy to be released from Aluminum+Oxygen reactions than needed to cause the collapses.
He is left with the choice to manufacture evidence, or stand the buildings back up and prove they never fell.
I wish him luck on that!

I just wonder what Dr. Jones will say when Dr. Fetzer, ask him the question that I asked Dr. Fetzer, and told him that the same reason why nano- ( superthermite) works is the same reason aluminum would have went though oxidation reactions in the twin towers.
Including super explosive Liquid endothermic, which I never want to do again!

I just wanted to paste this clarification that I sent to Dr. Fetzer, today.

I have not received a reply to this as to date.

I will keep it in layman's terms, for the benefit of the members here, please correct any inaccuracies I have made, that would be most helpful.

Dear Dr. Fetzer,

I wanted to clarify my last email to you, based on Dr. Steven Joneses, work
it is the rapid reaction of super thermites that provides the force to
pulverize the concrete, that reaction comes from the movement of the
particles, the conversion of thermal energy to the Molecular motion,
expansion to break the oxide layer. The reason that is important that is
what allows a stable device to be made, because we are referring to solid
forms of Aluminum the fuel in super thermites. However as the particle is
reduced the Oxide layer to fuel source increases, there is actually greater
fuel in Endothermic metal reactions in liquid form, and they can react
quicker, if the Oxide is compromised, than Super thermites it all depends on
the energy molecular motion to break the oxide coating and the speed it is
applied to the coating and materials. The smaller the particle the faster
the reaction of said particle with thermal energy, to create molecular
motion.

The size of the energy packet is irrelevant, it is the speed of the reaction
that matters and since the Oxide layer on molten aluminum is dependent on
the temperature of the material because of the physics of molecular bonding
that effects all elements and compounds in the universe. The hotter
something is the more Liquefied it is the weaker the bonds, damaging the
coating at the right temperature will cause extremely fast endothermic
reactions faster than those of even super thermites. I wish you could have
seen the aluminum fire ball burning in air at super sonic speeds that I
created. At that speed and temperature the Oxide coating is molten, and the
shock wave of the explosion, blew it away from the metal .

It would just be difficult to make a device that would recreate it stable,
which is why they use solid, not molten aluminum in super thermites. The
Molten aluminum is simply to reactive and dangerous for the application of
it in a stable device.

PS. I have also reverse engineered a device that will cut though the beam,
that Dr. Jones says was cut with thermite, I found it almost impossible to
cut a standing beam with thermite, but I was able to cut a standing beam
with a thermite powered device, using steam, from a similar reaction of
Carbon with Iron oxide, and thermite simply as a heat source directly
applied to the steel. Up on contact with the heated material, steel, the
Iron in the steel reacted with the steam and gave of hydrogen while
producing an Iron oxide slag from the steel burring. This is important
because Iron rusts when exposed to steam or water in air, and there is no
rust on the slag, on the beam, it is almost impossible to recreate that with
thermite it would require a device that could produce a solid aluminum oxide
coating on the metal, do to the violence of the thermite reaction, that is
about as probable as me winning the Powerball without buying a ticket.

It is very important you check the date of the photos creation, my thermite
starts rusting within minutes of exposure to an Ion Carrier, such as steam
or moisture.

We are talking 100 year old science, are we not?

http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/~radok/physics/j5.htm (http://kr.cs.ait.ac.th/%7Eradok/physics/j5.htm)

"The combustion of iron and certain other (highly heated) metals in a pure
oxygen flow is technically of great importance due to the accompanying huge
quantities of heat - huge when compared with the unit volume of the metal,
for iron, it is around 12900 cal/l compared with 2½ cal/l for hydrogen. A
strongly condensed sharp oxygen jet, meeting a plate made out of malleable
iron or steel at a location, which has been heated to about 1 350ºC,
combusts the iron there into iron oxide and blows the oxide away. The heat
tone of the combustion heats and combusts neighboring sections; locations in
the direction of the gas jet pass through the same process, and since this
continues, you can make deep groves in plates and eventually cut them
(autogenous). A metal can be cut autogeneously only when its temperature of
brisk combustion and oxide melting point lie below its melting temperature.
This is the reason, why cast iron, copper, aluminium, et al. cannot be cut,
but only melted through. The combustion of aluminium into aluminium oxide
(Al2O3) forms the foundation of alumino-thermics (H. Goldschmidt, 1899),
which serves generation of high temperatures, especially for welding (rail
links, large machine parts), but here the oxygen comes from the interaction
of aluminium with iron-oxide. During the conversion of 1 kg thermite
mixture, consisting of 3 parts Fe2O3 and one part of Al, there arise about
850 kcal. This enormous heat tone of the reaction is due to its rapid
development during a few seconds; the estimated maximum temperature is 3
000ºC."

Also I wish to add that Prof. Woods is right about aluminum glowing Yellow
at 1000c, since black body radiation is irrelevant. However Dr. Jones is
right that pure molten aluminum can not drop or flow for long distances in
air without turning silver because of conductivity it simply cools to
quickly. However a mixture of steel dust, and Aluminum from a high impact
maybe and probably mixed with an amount of carbon black and Iron Oxide can
glow as it falls though air from the complex reactions of the Oxidations of
the materials involved. Such a combination can only be formed from a high
impact situation, or possibly from a sand blasting situation, then a very
slow melting of the Aluminum in combination with violent wave action on the
material.

I intend to also address these Issues on my next World Wide TV. appearance,
which I hope will not be to long into the future. It will be a minor issue,
I was going to ignore it but the producers want me to address it.

Sincerely,

Carroll Sanders

[Neil MacInnis]

Mmmm that was enlightening. thank you.

[stundie]

stundie, I think crazy chainsaw is talking about the possibility that the kinetic energy of the falling buildings may have acted on the aluminium in the planes and the towers to generate a thermite reaction.

I'm aware of what a nano thermite reaction is and I have heard this being used to explain why there was molten metal at the bottom of the rubble, although I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there.

For proof off thermal images on WTC7 - Which no plane hit!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html - Sorry I'm using a conspiracy site here, but I just clicked on the 1st image I could fine.

This nano thermite reaction at WTC7 is an absurd theory unless someone cares to explain to me how it is not?

As I've always said, I'm aways open to new ideas but I think Neils explanation of how it is not possible rests that baby! So if it didn't occur naturally....How did it occur then Maccy? Debunk that one?


I don't think either chainsaw or neil believe that thermite was planted in the towers in order to cut through the core columns.

When did I ever say that Chainsaw or Neil said that Thermite was planted in the towers? Or give that impression they believed that!

You guys are so rabid in your arguments to debunk anything that doesn't fit the offical story, that you make these crazy assumptions.

You are again clutching at straws here and although I believe that they were planted, its my opinion based on the evidence presented to me & not necessary the opinion of Neil or Chainsaw!


Crazy chainsaw's point is that even if Jones could prove a thermite reaction he would also have to prove that this reactions wasn't the natural result of the building falling down.

Why would Jones have to prove that this was not a nano thermite reaction? Thats is perposterous! Surely this should be upto the person who suggested it that it could be a nano thermite reaction?? to prove that it was, or at least possible??

Its an almost impossible scenario for a nano thermite reaction to occur anyway, making it a ridiculous claim. As ever with you skeptic in your quest to debunk ANYTHING you become blindsided.

Surely investigating this should be the job of NIST seeing thats what they were paid to do, but in their ever so thorough investigation of the collapses, they fail to mention it, like it wasn't there?

There is also evidence of Thermite before the towers collapse. http://www.explosive911analysis.com See fig 9 & 10. Which again blows the nano thermite reaction out of the water! Along with no plane hitting WTC7!

2 points there, puposely ignored!

It is not Jones job to prove anything, it should be the job of the investigators but seeing as they are doing such a rubbish job, it's left upto to people like Prof Jones to come forward and point out the glaring mistakes and contradictions!


The four points that you list in your post misrepresent the answers you have been given about molten metal, once again.

Sorry but I'm not misrepresenting anything at all. I've asked this question in previous posts (Admittiedly on the wrong thread) and I have read about nano thermite reactions before, but because I'm no scientists, so I do not have the knowledge to dispute it, even though it sounded suspicious to me.

The only answers I've received from the JREFers in here are the A-D ones as I have pointed out, I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Now that Neil has done a great hatchet job on you JREFers. I'll leave this one alone!!


I'm going to copy your post into this this thread, which would be a better place to discuss underground fires and molten metal:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65353

I suggest you read the whole of the thread before commenting further.


No point in directing anything, after Neils thorough explanation, there is no need for me to continue this as Neil proves this Thermite/mate didn't occur naturally. Again it supports MY EVIDENCE (Just mine, nobody elses, i.e. Chainsaw or Neil) that the towers could have been brought down. Please don't ask me to explain because I will go off on track on this thread.

You guys were so quick to debunk this one, but it appears you guys in your desperation to debunk theories, you are now being made too look like the woowoos! :eek:

[uk_dave]

It is interesting that Stundie quotes from a conspiracy site (first time? I guess so, as long as you don't count the 'co-operative research' one), and, as ever, the woowoo site in question is able to come up with gems such as:

That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Except that, in the actual article to which 911research (gotta love those names these guys adopt for themselves) the issue of Loizeaux's trial hardly bear out their claim that this should have disqualified him.... for ANYTHING.

Four checks
The amounts involved were small — all told, $4,000 — and no one suggested that the candidate even was aware of the contributions, let alone influenced by them.

But to the prosecutors, it was a matter of principle.

"This is the case about two powerful businessmen who decided to use employees of their own company to funnel money into a federal campaign," Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen O. Gavin told jurors in her opening statement in September.

It was the first congressional-campaign contribution case ever tried in the U.S. District for Maryland, according to the defense attorneys.

Witnesses testified that the case against CDI, which has fewer than 20 employees, took shape during an investigation of contributions to Rep. Elijah E. Cummings' 1996 campaign.

Prosecutors claimed the Loizeaux brothers asked four CDI employees to contribute $1,000 apiece to Cummings' campaign because Cummings supported demolition of high-rise public-housing projects, which could mean more business for CDI.

The company then reimbursed each donor, some on the same day they made campaign contributions, the prosecution charged.

It is illegal for a corporation to reimburse employees for making campaign contributions because corporations cannot donate cash to federal campaigns. And it is illegal for anyone to use "straw contributors" to hide the identity of the true donor.

The defense attorneys countered by saying that CDI's payments to the employees were bonuses, not reimbursements.

After a two-year process and a trial that ran intermittently for three weeks, the jury came back in less than two hours — including a break for lunch.

Not guilty. Not guilty. Not guilty.

Federal prosecutors did not return a reporter's calls for comment.

http://tinyurl.com/mgeea

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm aware of what a nano thermite reaction is and I have heard this being used to explain why there was molten metal at the bottom of the rubble, although I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there.

For proof off thermal images on WTC7 - Which no plane hit!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html - Sorry I'm using a conspiracy site here, but I just clicked on the 1st image I could fine.
Argument from personal incredulity.

This nano thermite reaction at WTC7 is an absurd theory unless someone cares to explain to me how it is not?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_ignorantiam) ; unless you care to provide a better substantiation of your claim that it is "an absurd theory".

...
When did I ever say that Chainsaw or Neil said that Thermite was planted in the towers? Or give that impression they believed that!
Maccy's quote made no accusations against you, Neil, or CC; it was a clarification.

You guys are so rabid in your arguments to debunk anything that doesn't fit the offical story, that you make these crazy assumptions.
Straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man)

You are again clutching at straws here and although I believe that they were planted, its my opinion based on the evidence presented to me & not necessary the opinion of Neil or Chainsaw!
Then present it in a manner that can be debated clearly; because your opinion doesn't mean squat.

Why would Jones have to prove that this was not a nano thermite reaction? Thats is perposterous! Surely this should be upto the person who suggested it that it could be a nano thermite reaction?? to prove that it was, or at least possible??
That is exactly what they are saying; if it can be shown that a nanothermite reaction is a possible explanation, then the onus is on Jones to defend his assertion and in doing so must show evidence that precludes a nanothermite reaction, or how a nanothermite reaction could not have occurred.

Its an almost impossible scenario for a nano thermite reaction to occur anyway, making it a ridiculous claim.
Evidence?

As ever with you skeptic in your quest to debunk ANYTHING you become blindsided.
Straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man)

Surely investigating this should be the job of NIST seeing thats what they were paid to do, but in their ever so thorough investigation of the collapses, they fail to mention it, like it wasn't there?

There is also evidence of Thermite before the towers collapse. http://www.explosive911analysis.com (http://www.explosive911analysis.com/) See fig 9 & 10. Which again blows the nano thermite reaction out of the water! Along with no plane hitting WTC7!


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


2 points there, puposely ignored!

It is not Jones job to prove anything, it should be the job of the investigators but seeing as they are doing such a rubbish job, it's left upto to people like Prof Jones to come forward and point out the glaring mistakes and contradictions!
Specific example where Jones has done so?


Sorry but I'm not misrepresenting anything at all. I've asked this question in previous posts (Admittiedly on the wrong thread) and I have read about nano thermite reactions before, but because I'm no scientists, so I do not have the knowledge to dispute it, even though it sounded suspicious to me.

The only answers I've received from the JREFers in here are the A-D ones as I have pointed out, I'm not misrepresenting anything.
You are either failing to understand the answers being provided to you, or you are committing Straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man) fallacies. Either way, your list is erroneous.


Now that Neil has done a great hatchet job on you JREFers. I'll leave this one alone!!

No point in directing anything, after Neils thorough explanation, there is no need for me to continue this as Neil proves this Thermite/mate didn't occur naturally. Again it supports MY EVIDENCE (Just mine, nobody elses, i.e. Chainsaw or Neil) that the towers could have been brought down. Please don't ask me to explain because I will go off on track on this thread.
I'll defer to those more knowledgeable in the relevant areas than I to comment on the veracity of Neil's statements.

[stundie]

It is interesting that Stundie quotes from a conspiracy site (first time? I guess so, as long as you don't count the 'co-operative research' one), and, as ever, the woowoo site in question is able to come up with gems such as:


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

Except that, in the actual article to which 911research (gotta love those names these guys adopt for themselves) the issue of Loizeaux's trial hardly bear out their claim that this should have disqualified him.... for ANYTHING.



http://tinyurl.com/mgeea

The reference I used from the WooWoo sights were images of the Thermal posts on the Satallite photo and the pictures showing thermite pouring out from the building before it collapsed.

I would never refer yout to a conspiracy site or a debunking site because the both have there own agenda. I have used both sites to establish a picture but I prefer my own research and ideas!

[maccy]

I'm aware of what a nano thermite reaction is and I have heard this being used to explain why there was molten metal at the bottom of the rubble, although I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there.

For proof off thermal images on WTC7 - Which no plane hit!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html - Sorry I'm using a conspiracy site here, but I just clicked on the 1st image I could fine.

Again, I'm going to copy this over to the relevant thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197). I'm sure somebody will answer it there.

This nano thermite reaction at WTC7 is an absurd theory unless someone cares to explain to me how it is not?

As I've always said, I'm aways open to new ideas but I think Neils explanation of how it is not possible rests that baby! So if it didn't occur naturally....How did it occur then Maccy? Debunk that one?

What evidence is there that a nano-thermite reaction occurred in WTC7?

When did I ever say that Chainsaw or Neil said that Thermite was planted in the towers? Or give that impression they believed that!

You guys are so rabid in your arguments to debunk anything that doesn't fit the offical story, that you make these crazy assumptions.

You are again clutching at straws here and although I believe that they were planted, its my opinion based on the evidence presented to me & not necessary the opinion of Neil or Chainsaw!

I was trying to clarify what they were saying.

Why would Jones have to prove that this was not a nano thermite reaction? Thats is perposterous! Surely this should be upto the person who suggested it that it could be a nano thermite reaction?? to prove that it was, or at least possible??

Its an almost impossible scenario for a nano thermite reaction to occur anyway, making it a ridiculous claim. As ever with you skeptic in your quest to debunk ANYTHING you become blindsided.

I am far from being convinced that there is any evidence for a thermite reaction. I was just trying to make a summary of crazy chainsaw's theory as it is quite technical and not very brief. I suggest you argue the point with chainsaw.

Surely investigating this should be the job of NIST seeing thats what they were paid to do, but in their ever so thorough investigation of the collapses, they fail to mention it, like it wasn't there?

They didn't find evidence of thermite, that's why they didn't mention it.

There is also evidence of Thermite before the towers collapse. http://www.explosive911analysis.com See fig 9 & 10. Which again blows the nano thermite reaction out of the water! Along with no plane hitting WTC7!

Again, I'm copying this point to the molten metal thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197).

2 points there, puposely ignored!

How can I ignore points before you answer them?

It is not Jones job to prove anything...

If he cannot prove his hypothesis, why should we believe it?

...it should be the job of the investigators but seeing as they are doing such a rubbish job, it's left upto to people like Prof Jones to come forward and point out the glaring mistakes and contradictions!

Steven Jones is no longer a professor. Is it your layman's opinion that NIST are doing a rubbish job, or do you have some professional standing to back it up?

Sorry but I'm not misrepresenting anything at all. I've asked this question in previous posts (Admittiedly on the wrong thread) and I have read about nano thermite reactions before, but because I'm no scientists, so I do not have the knowledge to dispute it, even though it sounded suspicious to me.

The only answers I've received from the JREFers in here are the A-D ones as I have pointed out, I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Again, I refer you to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197).

Now that Neil has done a great hatchet job on you JREFers. I'll leave this one alone!!

Neil has done no such thing, he is engaged in a technical discussion with Crazy Chainsaw about a specific hypothesis of Chainsaw's

No point in directing anything, after Neils thorough explanation, there is no need for me to continue this as Neil proves this Thermite/mate didn't occur naturally. Again it supports MY EVIDENCE (Just mine, nobody elses, i.e. Chainsaw or Neil) that the towers could have been brought down. Please don't ask me to explain because I will go off on track on this thread.

You guys were so quick to debunk this one, but it appears you guys in your desperation to debunk theories, you are now being made too look like the woowoos! :eek:

Nobody has conceded that there even is evidence for Thermite or a varient of it. Likewise nobody has conceded that the molten metal found is steel or that the heat couldn't have been generated by underground fires. Again, all the issues are addressed in this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197

If you don't reply in it, I'll assume that you don't have rebuttals for the points raised in it and are just resorting to rhetoric and generalisation.

[stundie]

Argument from personal incredulity.[/qoute]

Maccy was pointing out what Chainsaw and Neil were talking about, I was letting him know I knew what they were talking about.

Agrument from peronal incredulity....Hardly considering I'm not arguing anything at all.

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_ignorantiam) ; unless you care to provide a better substantiation of your claim that it is "an absurd theory".[/qoute]

Substaniate my claim....Quite simple!! NO PLANE HIT WTC7, yet there are pools of molten metal found like in the other WTC.

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
Maccy's quote made no accusations against you, Neil, or CC; it was a clarification. [/qoute]

So whats this then....

[QUOTE=maccy;2131708]I don't think either chainsaw or neil believe that thermite was planted in the towers in order to cut through the core columns.




Straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man)[/qoute]

I love making straw man comments.

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
Then present it in a manner that can be debated clearly; because your opinion doesn't mean squat. [/qoute]

If I argued my points on WTC Collapses it would require another thread and we would be going off the subject and I like to keep to the subject.

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
That is exactly what they are saying; if it can be shown that a nanothermite reaction is a possible explanation, then the onus is on Jones to defend his assertion and in doing so must show evidence that precludes a nanothermite reaction, or how a nanothermite reaction could not have occurred.[/qoute]

Whoever thought a Nano Thermite Reaction could occur, then it is upto them to present the facts. No Prof Jones!

[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
Evidence?[/qoute]

Again no plane hit WTC 7, Neils post arguing how it could not have been possible. Sightings of a thermite reaction before the towers collapsed!! Is that good enough for you.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


[QUOTE=Arkan_Wolfshade;2131973]
Specific example where Jones has done so?

Is he not the proponent of a Thermite reaction being used. Something which NIST Ignored. Not sure what you don't understand about that statement.


You are either failing to understand the answers being provided to you, or you are committing Straw man (http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#straw_man) fallacies. Either way, your list is erroneous.

No I am not failing to understand the answers. These are the answers being given. Argumentum ad ignorantiam!!


I'll defer to those more knowledgeable in the relevant areas than I to comment on the veracity of Neil's statements.

Good, lets leave them too it then, but no ones refuted Neils post yet and his argument seem very plausable & water tight, although of course he could be wrong.

[stundie]

What evidence is there that a nano-thermite reaction occurred in WTC7?

I dunno seeing as I do not believe in a nano thermite reaction in any of the buildings.



I was trying to clarify what they were saying.
I understood what they were saying too.


I am far from being convinced that there is any evidence for a thermite reaction. I was just trying to make a summary of crazy chainsaw's theory as it is quite technical and not very brief. I suggest you argue the point with chainsaw.

Neil has done that already, he appears to know more about it than I do, so I'll leave that to him.


They didn't find evidence of thermite, that's why they didn't mention it.

They never mentioned the fires under the rubble of WTC and they never look at the possibilities of Thermite.


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


Again, I'm copying this point to the molten metal thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69197).



How can I ignore points before you answer them?



If he cannot prove his hypothesis, why should we believe it?
He cannot prove it, because he cannot get to any of the metal. Besides I thought it was a Hypothesis, like Chainsaws thread. An idea!



Steven Jones is no longer a professor. Is it your layman's opinion that NIST are doing a rubbish job, or do you have some professional standing to back it up?

I know he was hounded out of his job, what for expressing his rights to freedom of speech! Because he no longer works at a University, does that know means he is no longer a Proffessor. Not sure how it works in American, but in the UK, if you get sacked or leave a job, you do not lose the title.





Neil has done no such thing, he is engaged in a technical discussion with Crazy Chainsaw about a specific hypothesis of Chainsaw's

And pretty much explained how it was impossible.



Nobody has conceded that there even is evidence for Thermite or a varient of it.


Likewise nobody has conceded that the molten metal found is steel or that the heat couldn't have been generated by underground fires. Again, all the issues are addressed in this thread:

So all the photos of molten steel, fused with concrete is what exactly?? The heat couldn't have been generated by underground fires, because there is nothing hot enough to burn at the tempretures recorded.


If you don't reply in it, I'll assume that you don't have rebuttals for the points raised in it and are just resorting to rhetoric and generalisation.

Like I said, I've read through and there is no point, Neil has provided what I would call a credible argument which debunks the idea of a nanothermite reaction.

[maccy]

Like I said, I've read through and there is no point, Neil has provided what I would call a credible argument which debunks the idea of a nanothermite reaction.

You don't need a nanothermite reaction to explain molten metal, that's what the thread explains.

[beachnut]

The reference I used from the WooWoo sights were images of the Thermal posts on the Satallite photo and the pictures showing thermite pouring out from the building before it collapsed.

I would never refer yout to a conspiracy site or a debunking site because the both have there own agenda. I have used both sites to establish a picture but I prefer my own research and ideas!

So where is your proof of thermite? Find me some thermite being placed in the WTC by anyone and you will have a Pulitzer Prize. Do you think?

Wonder where all the oxygen generators went when they entered the WTC on board 175 and 11?

Does this mean you are a Dr Thermite Jones lemming?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You don't need a nanothermite reaction to explain molten metal, that's what the thread explains.

Exactly, I remember the film that I once saw back in the 70s about the building of the world trade center, it showed the fire tests a UL they showed the temperatures, by a Gage thermometer and buy melting both lead aluminum and steel in the room on test of Assemblies, if that film still existed, it would have thrown a monkey wrench in the Cters claims.

Random house education, no longer exists and all the materials have been discarded but you would think that some one would have a copy of that somewhere.

How can you test a building to 2000c as Kevin Ryan suggests when the metal burns at 1350c?
I believe that statement was completely Illogical.

Well I am really not feeling to well and these constant debates, and other stuff wearing me down, and keeping me from other interests I think I will make one last tread a prediction about the Scholars for truth, and then suspend my account for a while.

[maccy]

Stundie,

Huntsman has just posted an excellent explanation for the molten metal here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2132143#post2132143

If you don't reply to his post, in the thread he posted it in, I think we can draw our own conclusions.

[beachnut]

Hi Neil,

A) Its been debunker (With no reference or evidence that shows this)
B) Its the aluminuim and kersone from the jet(Which doesn't explain how the tempratures were hot enough to melt the steels beams)
C) Its a pit fire, did you know pitfires get hot.
D) There were no fires! (even though there is plenty of evidence and witness accounts to show otherwise)

I will warn you, that because your explanation doesn't fit in with the offical story or the debunkers versions, you may like me, maybe labelled a conspiracy theorists, even though I would never consider myself one! Its not like I believe in the Roswell incident or a space beam was used on WTC.

we might get a proper investigation as to what happened on 9/11.

stundie

Who has melted steel beams?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

For Niel
http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody2.JPG, I believe you will know what that is.