1646 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

Skyeagle409

Iron BOILS at some number above 2000, I'm quite sure.

From the air samples taken there by the guys from California, iron was boiling nearby.  For weeks afterwards.

You can deny this, and I know you will, but such denial simply illustrates how uninformed you are, or how deeply in denial you are.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 January 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Skyeagle409

Iron BOILS at some number above 2000, I'm quite sure.

Iron burns and you can use steel wool to start fires as well, and temperatures of 2000 degrees is not required to weaken steel.  Once again, you are advertising your lack of knowledge to everyone regarding temperature and the strength of steel.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 19 January 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Not in the same class as your direct claim that it wasn't.  Quibble as much as you like, you made claims about a document you hadn't read and then accused me of exactly what you yourself had just done.

Are you stupid or deliberately ignoring the part of my post where this was explained?  I’m going with the latter – it is your attempt to save face as a result of your argument being well and truly exposed.  At any rate, you didn’t quote/respond to the part of my post where it was explained, so here it is again for you to think about.  Your claims rely on some as yet unknown detail – if it even exists.  My claims, which are completely different to your own, do not.  Please go back and check what has been claimed before wasting anymore of my time.

See, my claim: -
“The original authors clearly failed to meet their own requirement for a "detailed study" by 1) not demonstrating a match to the phenomenon at the WTC and 2) lack of consideration to plausible alternative mechanisms.”
http://www.unexplain...60#entry4621058

This is self-apparent from the conclusion and excerpts available.

Your claim: -
“Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks.  They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.”
http://www.unexplain...05#entry4625439

This is speculation without viewing the paper and/or ability to answer the fundamental question in my post #108.

flyingswan, on 19 January 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

I see, it's another of those areas where Q24's imagined technical expertise overrides that of everyone who's actually done any work on the subject.  I didn't ask the question to be fobbed off with your personal fantasies, I was hoping for some actual evidence that thermite could have that effect on steel without raising its temperature anywhere near to thermite's reaction temperature.  Just heating steel certainly doesn't have that effect, you need the presence of sulphur, so why should the steel have come into contact with the small proportion of sulphur that's in thermite but not with the thermite itself?

As to molten steel, you still have not produced any evidence of temperatures high enough to produce this.  All you have is reports from eyewitnesses who would not have been able to distinguish molten steel from any other molten metal.

It’s certainly another one of those areas which flyingswan would like to imagine is all rather more complicated than it really is.  Think about it Swanny, what happens to the temperature of thermite after the initial reaction, or after energy is expended melting the steelwork where the hole now exists?  But I guess such independent thought requires more ‘technical expertise’ than you can handle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite, only one further piece of evidence which could fit and be explained by that answer.  Simultaneously, there is no physical evidence of high temperatures in the steelwork caused by the fires at all, i.e. NIST:  "no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure."  These are the facts that I set out in my post #51 before you interrupted by linking to the paper which you haven't even read.

As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, “beams had just totally been melted” and, “when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” were mistaken.  Those accounts are a big clue as to identity of the molten metal which you conveniently fabricate excuses for.  Yeah it must be an aluminium lollipop on a steel stick, sure Swanny, that's really best fit hmmm.

But oh heck, you find one second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account of a passenger still strapped to their seat at the Pentagon and it’s nailed on evidence for you, complete with your personal ‘technical expertise’ speculation of how an aircraft can practically disintegrate upon impact with steel-reinforced concrete walls whilst the human body does not.  You fit what you want to fit all round, but I'll be consistent and take what's there.

I have better things to do but thanks for the 'discussion'.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 22 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Are you stupid or deliberately ignoring the part of my post where this was explained?

I read your quibble and, like all your previous similar quibbles, it is well worth ignoring.

Quote

Your claim: -
"Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks.  They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue."
http://www.unexplain...05#entry4625439

This is speculation without viewing the paper and/or ability to answer the fundamental question in my post #108.

I don't need to read the paper to learn that, it's a commonplace physical process.  However, I've read Sisson's BBC interview and I've seen an earlier paper by him and others, both of which confirm what I've been saying.

Quote

It's certainly another one of those areas which flyingswan would like to imagine is all rather more complicated than it really is.  Think about it Swanny, what happens to the temperature of thermite after the initial reaction, or after energy is expended melting the steelwork where the hole now exists?  But I guess such independent thought requires more 'technical expertise' than you can handle.

Generally, when thermite melts a hole, it falls through it.  It doesn't hang around cooling down.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite,

Just as well, because there isn't any.

Quote

As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, "beams had just totally been melted" and, "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" were mistaken.  Those accounts are a big clue as to identity of the molten metal which you conveniently fabricate excuses for.  Yeah it must be an aluminium lollipop on a steel stick, sure Swanny, that's really best fit hmmm.

You're doing it again.  You accuse me of using a second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account when "beams had just totally been melted" was from a chaplain who wasn't there.

As to "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel", as I've asked you before without getting an answer, does the fact that you drip water after you get out of the bath mean that you're made of ice?

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 22 January 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite, only one further piece of evidence which could fit and be explained by that answer.

Are you implying that thermite is more effective than RDX, which is used by demolition companies? Ever wondered why there is no evidence that thermite was used in the 911 attacks and why demolition companies used RDX over thermite? No thermite cuts were found on the steel columns nor was evidence found of structural pre-weakening on the steel columns of the WTC buildings.

Quote

"no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure."

Actually, the laws of physics say that you are incorrect because temperatures inside the WTC buildings were high enough to weaken steel, which caused the collapse of the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain. Buckling of the buildings just prior to their collapse was evidence that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

http://www.represent...Explosives.html


Buckling Steel

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said. The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.

Police had already ordered a complete evacuation of the north tower at the time those transmissions were made, said Police Department Inspector Michael Coan. Both transmissions came after the south tower was already down, he said.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

You backed the work of Steven Jones without doing  your homework. Check it out.

Quote

BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper!

BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor For Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition

Professor Steven E. Jones only was in the public eye for five days before BYU told him to stop giving interviews. Now the university has issued a public statement distancing itself from Jones and even discrediting his work. Critics suggest Bush administration had its dirty hand in forcing BYU to 'shut up' its professor.

http://rense.com/general69/discred.htm

Steven Jones was unaware that compounds of thermite could also be found in materials used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

!

Quote

As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, “beams had just totally been melted” and, “when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” were mistaken.

You mean, like in this picture where workers used torches to cut steel?

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 January 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[skyeagle409]

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 January 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

From the air samples taken there by the guys from California, iron was boiling nearby.  For weeks afterwards. You can deny this, and I know you will, but such denial simply illustrates how uninformed you are, or how deeply in denial you are.

What have I said about exothermic reactions? I guess you also missed this as well.

Quote

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.  That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction calledoxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air.  Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

And,

Quote

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

http://www.tms.org/p...erman-0112.html

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 22 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I read your quibble and, like all your previous similar quibbles, it is well worth ignoring.I don't need to read the paper to learn that, it's a commonplace physical process.  However, I've read Sisson's BBC interview and I've seen an earlier paper by him and others, both of which confirm what I've been saying.

Right, so you refuse to address the argument; you wilfully ignore it.  Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense.

And what are you talking about?  The phenomenon observed at the WTC is not ‘commonplace’ at all, the authors specifically called it a “very unusual event” for heaven sake – you’re fooling yourself there.  Simple corrosion is of course commonplace but has not been shown to reproduce the WTC effect to the degree or within the timeframe noted.  Why is demonstrating that too much?  It’s a fundamental requirement of your argument that you cannot achieve.  Why are you being ridiculous about it?  Yes you need to read the paper and answer the question posed, otherwise having nothing but an appeal to authority and lack of evidence which critical thinkers are not inclined to accept.

flyingswan, on 22 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Generally, when thermite melts a hole, it falls through it.  It doesn't hang around cooling down.
Just as well, because there isn't any.

Yes the suggestion is that it melted a hole and fell through.  Though the adjacent remaining steelwork which was analysed does not experience such high temperature (otherwise that would form a part of the hole too).

flyingswan, on 22 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Just as well, because there isn't any.

There is no ‘absolute evidence’ of thermite, as there is no ‘absolute evidence’ of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored.  Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature.  No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

flyingswan, on 22 January 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

You're doing it again.  You accuse me of using a second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account when "beams had just totally been melted" was from a chaplain who wasn't there.

As to "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel", as I've asked you before without getting an answer, does the fact that you drip water after you get out of the bath mean that you're made of ice?

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders on site and his account is corroborated by others and photographic evidence.  So much as you’d like it to be, this has very little in common with your dedicated acceptance of an uncorroborated media statement that isn’t even in quote format.

The question you ask is rhetorical and not congruent to the situation we have here.  The eyewitnesses clearly had reason to deduce that the dripping/melted substance was a product of the material it came from.  Of course you, not being there (like you didn’t read the Sisson paper before jumping to conclusion), surely know better.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Even Swanny is incapable of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.

That he chooses to make the attempt provides some measure of insight into the weakness of his position.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 22 January 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

That he chooses to make the attempt provides some measure of insight into the weakness of his position.

Actually, 911 CT folks speak from a platform of ignorance, which explains why that have duped by 911 CT websites over the years.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 22 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

There is no ‘absolute evidence’ of thermite,....

But, we knew that because there was no evidence of thermite found in the rubble.

Quote

...as there is no ‘absolute evidence’ of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored.

Actually, it has been proven that the collapsed of the WTC buildings was fire-induced. The buckling of the WTC buildings was just one part of the evidence that fires were weakening their steel structures.

Quote

Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature.

On the contrary, steel begins to weaken at the temperatures noted in reports.

Quote

No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

You shoud have said that no one found evidence that thermite, much less, explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC builidings. Check it out.

Quote

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

-----------------------------------------------------------


Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse.

Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

--------------------------------------------------------


Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers.

Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

It is very clear that you concoct unfounded conspiracies despite no evidence to backup your claim with real evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 22 January 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 22 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders on site and his account is corroborated by others and photographic evidence.

Photographic and video evidence, along with seismic data, proved beyond any doubt that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.

[joc]

Quote

Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

Reminds me of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 22 January 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Right, so you refuse to address the argument; you wilfully ignore it.  Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense.

I would be at fault in ignoring it only if it actually was an argument instead of another example of your exceptional quibbling skill.

Quote

And what are you talking about?  The phenomenon observed at the WTC is not 'commonplace' at all, the authors specifically called it a "very unusual event" for heaven sake – you're fooling yourself there.  Simple corrosion is of course commonplace but has not been shown to reproduce the WTC effect to the degree or within the timeframe noted.  Why is demonstrating that too much?  It's a fundamental requirement of your argument that you cannot achieve.  Why are you being ridiculous about it?  Yes you need to read the paper and answer the question posed, otherwise having nothing but an appeal to authority and lack of evidence which critical thinkers are not inclined to accept.

They demonstrated a process that produced similar intergranular erosion to the WTC7 sample.  What is commonplace is that if a process can start, then it can continue as long as the conditions that cause it are maintained.

Quote

Yes the suggestion is that it melted a hole and fell through.  Though the adjacent remaining steelwork which was analysed does not experience such high temperature (otherwise that would form a part of the hole too).

The edge of the hole will briefly experience high temperature while in contact with the thermite, but such a high temperature isn't compatible with the evidence.  The observed erosion requires the presence of sulphur and prolonged temperature that while high is much lower than that of thermite melting a hole.

Quote

There is no 'absolute evidence' of thermite, as there is no 'absolute evidence' of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored.  Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature.  No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

They had difficulty finding any steel from the fire zone because these elements were generally broken and had lost their identifying marks.  However, they found evidence of exposure to fires between 250 deg C and 625 deg C (there is no method available for measuring exactly where in this range and steel loses a lot of its strength by the time it gets into the upper reaches of the range).  This range was consistent with the modelled fire temperatures and lack of likely insulation damage at the locations of the samples.  Other locations had higher modelled temperatures, typical of normal building fires, but no recovered identifiable samples to test.

Quote

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders...

Glad you admit it wasn't a direct observation.

Quote

The question you ask is rhetorical and not congruent to the situation we have here.  The eyewitnesses clearly had reason to deduce that the dripping/melted substance was a product of the material it came from.  

My question was an exact parallel to the situation.  If you taken from a bath of water can drip water, a block of steel taken from a pool of molten aluminium can drip aluminium.

Once again, deduction isn't measurement.  No measurement of temperature, so no proof that the molten metal was steel.  Pick a steel beam out of a pool of molten aluminium and it will drip aluminium, but a steel beam in a pool of molten steel will melt too.

Edited by flyingswan, 23 January 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Swan

Actually, Peter Tully of Tully Construction told Christopher Bollyn in the summer of 2002 that he had seen pools of "literally molten steel".  Mark Loizeaux confirmed Tully's reports, and reported that there was molten steel at WTC7.

Further, in September 2001, Robert Leifer of DOE in New York, contacted Thomas Cahill of the DELTA Group at University of California.  By October they had placed a device known as a 8 stage rotating drum impactor to collect air samples.  It was placed at the edge of the "exclusion zone" monitoring the air.  While they were monitoring the air, the EPA was doing nothing except telling everybody everything was fine.

The air samples show large presence of iron rich and silicate spheres.

Thus, your claim that molten metal (iron) was not present is wrong.  It is mere regurgitation of the official story.