WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

Originally posted by Vushta
Why not?
The whole 'pulverization' bit is bogus. Thats how concrete fails.

No, it does not. It cracks and it breaks into chunks but does NOT "burst" into micron sized particles.

Common sense and physics tell us it should be chunks with some dust... not a huge cloud of talc.

Steve Jones will explain it to you... with ALL the numbers, sizes and energy calculations you would like at [email protected]

Vushta... you are a troll willing to post FLAT OUT LIES to advance your strange little agenda.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

No, it does not. It cracks and it breaks into chunks but does NOT "burst" into micron sized particles.

Common sense and physics tell us it should be chunks with some dust... not a huge cloud of talc.

Steve Jones will explain it to you... with ALL the numbers, sizes and energy calculations you would like at [email protected]

Vushta... you are a troll willing to post FLAT OUT LIES to advance your strange little agenda.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Well no. It fails by pulverizing. It loses its bond to the surrounding particles and the particles break free in the form of dust..The 'chunks' haven't failed.
It did crack and break into chunks. If you're trying to say that all the concrete burst into 'micron' sized particles...well thats just inaccurate.

Again if you say it was too much dust..well then say how much was the 'right' amount. Again all the CTs do is bring up vague ambiguious observations..."too fast"..."too much dust"..too sharp a bank".."not enough evidence saved".."a plane couldn't have created that much damage".."the plane created too much damage"..all of these fallacies are based in "common sense"

The logical fallacy of 'appeal to common sense' is a weak shield to hide behind.

Vushta... you are a troll willing to post FLAT OUT LIES to advance your strange little agenda.

Oh My!..someone needs a hug.

Care to point out some of these flat out lies? Enlighten me.

Why was every bit of the metal taken from the site. I think that it should have been at least looked into especially when someone at ground zero said they smelled cordite. Maybe the hijackers jumped off the plane when they hit and set the bombs themselves. All I know is that I have reviewed the films of the three collapses, and in each one you can see explosions coming out the side of the buildings. All the buildings seemed to fall the same way...I would say freefall.
The main theory of fuel causing the buildings to collapse I could possibly be made to believe for WTC#1, but as for WTC#2 The plane hit right on the corner of the building and most of the fuel exploded outside the building. That theory is not possible.
I need a question answered does the sulfur in thermate lower the ignition temp? Because if not it normally takes magnesium to set thermite off. Never played with thermate.
There are a lot of theories going around about the attacks. I have not seen enough debris come out of the Pentagon to show me that it was actually a 757. Does anyone know what sort of business went on in the wedge that was hit? Is the Pentagon split up into sections dedicated to different tasks? Maybe that would give some insight into what happened there. They didn't store service records there, did they? If they figure that kerosene burns hot enough to melt metal, wouldn't the bodies be incinerated? How were they able to identify all the bodies onboard?
Why was the Bush administration so adamant about halting the investigations into 9/11?
The only reason that I think that there is a conspiracy is because the official report only seems to try to hide something else.
We are supposed to trust those that we elect. But, when we are lied to as our government has lied to the american people, should we trust the official reports that are put out by the very same people that have lied to us in the past.

I have no reason to believe Dr. Jones is not credible. The question would be "is he right"? My opinion of him went up a notch when I read this:

Reports that BYU administration put a gag order on Physics Professor Steven E. Jones are exaggerated, Jones said in a phone interview Friday. Jones seemed surprised to hear that he’d been censored. He too was unaware of an e-mail that was circulating claiming that “BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition.” The e-mail quoted a “non-traditional” news Web site.

Source

I was amazed as I fought my way through the maze of articles on him at the number of outright lies expressed about the Mormon Church. I am no longer a member and have joined another church but these ridiculous comments are bald faced lies. These lies are mixed in with the lies about him being censored which is not too surprising considering the sources of some of the articles. He and his church should not have to be put through this just because he wrote a paper with an unpopular opinion. I’m not sure which source is the worst but I’ve added a few to my list of sites that print outright fabrications. Too bad he did not avoid all of them. It would have helped his cause greatly.

I started trying to find information on his work prior to this event and have had no luck so far. I’d like to see if controversy is a pattern with him or not. A search brings up to many articles about this subject to be able to sift through them all. Anyone have any leads on accessing his work in peer reviews. Are there any. If I’ve missed this somewhere please forgive me. I don’t always have time to read through every post and link. Maybe if someone in his field could guide me to the correct and credible journals. What topic was he published on? His field is a large one and no individual could be qualified in all aspects. Has he had experience in forensic investigations of fires or structural disastors?

I also find peers in the academic community jumping on board but I find no corroborating statements by peers in his field. Do any exist or is he hanging out there all alone?

Originally posted by TruthSeeker68854
Why was every bit of the metal taken from the site. I think that it should have been at least looked into especially when someone at ground zero said they smelled cordite. Maybe the hijackers jumped off the plane when they hit and set the bombs themselves. All I know is that I have reviewed the films of the three collapses, and in each one you can see explosions coming out the side of the buildings. All the buildings seemed to fall the same way...I would say freefall.
The main theory of fuel causing the buildings to collapse I could possibly be made to believe for WTC#1, but as for WTC#2 The plane hit right on the corner of the building and most of the fuel exploded outside the building. That theory is not possible.
I need a question answered does the sulfur in thermate lower the ignition temp? Because if not it normally takes magnesium to set thermite off. Never played with thermate.
There are a lot of theories going around about the attacks. I have not seen enough debris come out of the Pentagon to show me that it was actually a 757. Does anyone know what sort of business went on in the wedge that was hit? Is the Pentagon split up into sections dedicated to different tasks? Maybe that would give some insight into what happened there. They didn't store service records there, did they? If they figure that kerosene burns hot enough to melt metal, wouldn't the bodies be incinerated? How were they able to identify all the bodies onboard?
Why was the Bush administration so adamant about halting the investigations into 9/11?
The only reason that I think that there is a conspiracy is because the official report only seems to try to hide something else.
We are supposed to trust those that we elect. But, when we are lied to as our government has lied to the american people, should we trust the official reports that are put out by the very same people that have lied to us in the past.

They did study the steel and there are huge public reports documenting the large studies done on the steel. Documenting the condition of all the core beans as well as thei location, etc etc.

The building also didn't fall at freefall speeds. This is just a trick that conspiracy sites used to fool people. The bottom of the fall cannot be seen so they stop the timer long before the fall finishes and start it before ti starts. This helps them shave a good 3-5 seconds or so off the fall.

None of the buildings fell in the same way, it just seems that way to our untrained eyes. What were are seeing simillar is onnly the effect of gravity which is going to bring them straight down. For them to fall sideways would defy the laws of phsyics.

The damage to WTC 2 was more fatal than WTC 1 *because* it was hit on the side. This combined with it being hit much lower is why it fell first.

The amount of wreckage to consider it a plane is a personal opinion. but there sure is a lot of it there. And they weren't able to identify all of the bodies due to fire damage. But they were able to identify many. The sad truth is that it requires very little to identify people and due to the nature of the crash body parts are blown everywhere as opposed to all remaining together and in tact thus consumed by the fire. And of course not everything is incinerated. As in most explosions everything is random. And jsut like in every fire, somethings survive while others don't. Just like in tornados: some thigns survive in tact while other things are completely destroyed.

The Bush administration didn't halt any 9/11 investigations. They were reluctant to start one, but under pressure from the famillies of 9/11 they conducted one. And the investigation is not over yet either. All governments and politicians lie. That does not mean they were behind 9/11. If that were the case then every government in the world or that ever existed was behind 9/11.

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

No, it does not. It cracks and it breaks into chunks but does NOT "burst" into micron sized particles.

Common sense and physics tell us it should be chunks with some dust... not a huge cloud of talc.

Steve Jones will explain it to you... with ALL the numbers, sizes and energy calculations you would like at [email protected]

Vushta... you are a troll willing to post FLAT OUT LIES to advance your strange little agenda.

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 19-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Well no. It fails by pulverizing. It loses its bond to the surrounding particles and the particles break free in the form of dust..The 'chunks' haven't failed.
It did crack and break into chunks. If you're trying to say that all the concrete burst into 'micron' sized particles...well thats just inaccurate.

Again if you say it was too much dust..well then say how much was the 'right' amount. Again all the CTs do is bring up vague ambiguious observations..."too fast"..."too much dust"..too sharp a bank".."not enough evidence saved".."a plane couldn't have created that much damage".."the plane created too much damage"..all of these fallacies are based in "common sense"

The logical fallacy of 'appeal to common sense' is a weak shield to hide behind.

Vushta... you are a troll willing to post FLAT OUT LIES to advance your strange little agenda.

Oh My!..someone needs a hug.

Care to point out some of these flat out lies? Enlighten me.

EMAIL ALL OF THIS TRASH TO THE ADDRESS I GAVE YOU ABOVE... ARGUE WITH THE MAN HIMSELF. You will be SHUT DOWN.

I notice you did not address the request that you ppose your questions to Steven... Why not? Send him this whole thread and EVERY post you make regarding materials or physics.

He WIILL answer you.

He will explain how a SLAB of concrete fails with cracks and chunks, not the complete, simultaneous breaking of molecular bonds.

EMAIL ALL OF THIS TRASH TO THE ADDRESS I GAVE YOU ABOVE... ARGUE WITH THE MAN HIMSELF. You will be SHUT DOWN.

I notice you did not address the request that you ppose your questions to Steven... Why not? Send him this whole thread and EVERY post you make regarding materials or physics.

He WIILL answer you.

He will explain how a SLAB of concrete fails with cracks and chunks, not the complete, simultaneous breaking of molecular bonds.

He will explain how a SLAB of concrete fails with cracks and chunks, not the complete, simultaneous breaking of molecular bonds.

I'm sure he can explain how a slab of concrete fail under specific conditions, but its just crap in context to the collapse of the towers.

I'm sure being a CT he would simply dodge direct questions..how much dust should there have been?...how do you seperate the amount of dust during the collapse and the amount of 'dust' created by the totality of the mass of the towers colliding at freefall speed (had to throw that in there) with the unmoveable force of the earth? How do you determine what dust is 'pulverized concrete' and other substances? Why is it necessary to reach as far as the abstraction of the amount of 'dust' to prove explosives?..where is the evidence of ..well..explosives?

To try and dodge the truth by referring me to pseudoscientists like Jones is like the desperate move of a religious fanatic trying to prove the bible true by asking questions of the Pope. You're not going to get a reasoned answer. You'll only get 'proof' of the 'truth' of the bible by being reference to other passages of the bible.
With 'pope Jones" all you'll get is references to HIS calculations as proof. Like strong adherence to a particular religion, all you'll get are answers that work only in the limitations of the theory. All other information will be convienently handwaved away as not important.

But as I stated before..the 'dust' is a bogus line of reasoning.
How about some evidence of explosives?
Let me guess..they were special explosives that don't leave blast patterns or residue.

As a side note.

Care to point out some of these flat out lies? Enlighten me.

Can you point out some of my 'flat out lies' to me? You avoided this question. You made the accusation and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.
Thanks.

Originally posted by Vushta

I'm sure being a CT he would simply dodge direct questions..how much dust should there have been?

How would you like this quantified?

There really is only one way to do it...

1. Measure the average size of the particulates found after the collapse.
2. Calculate the total amount of concrete in the towers.
3. Calculate the amount of energy required to break the concrete down into the average size particle.
4. Calculate the amount of energy available from gravity. (The only energy available to destroy the concrete.
5. Show that the amount of energy required to create the average particle size is exponentially larger then the potential energy provided by gravity.

Let me remind you that this HAS BEEN DONE. It has been shown over and over that the PE available for the "destruction" of a WTC tower was many orders lower than the actual energy used to eject beams, pulverize concrete and push a cloud of particulates for miles across Manhattan.

Since you seem to understand NOTHING about the zero sum game that is energy, addressing you on this topic is moot. You are asking fo EXACT numbers, something that $20,000,000 and the NIST could NOT provide. They used estimates and tweaked models, but YOU DEMAND that "CTers" provide exacting calculations.

Originally posted by Vushta
...how do you seperate the amount of dust during the collapse and the amount of 'dust' created by the totality of the mass of the towers colliding at freefall speed (had to throw that in there) with the unmoveable force of the earth?

You are trying to use the force of gravity TWICE in your calculation which is just stupid. You use the energy of G to create the dust "during the fall" then you use it again basically stating thath the sudden decelleration that occured at the base caused more pulverization. You are neglecting the fact that pulverization during the collapse would result in a lower velocity upon "impact". Your understand of physics sucks, yet you call Steven a "pseudoscientist"?

Originally posted by Vushta
How do you determine what dust is 'pulverized concrete' and other substances?

We would use an object called a microscope to examin samples if they were available.

Originally posted by Vushta
Why is it necessary to reach as far as the abstraction of the amount of 'dust' to prove explosives?.

Because it EASILY shows to those trained in physics that the amount of energy expended to cause this phenomenom is exponentially larger than the total potential energy of the system using only gravity.

Originally posted by Vushta
To try and dodge the truth by referring me to pseudoscientists like Jones is like the desperate move of a religious fanatic trying to prove the bible true by asking questions of the Pope.

Please explain how Steven is a "pseudoscientist". Please cite an error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings or publications.

Originally posted by Vushta
But as I stated before..the 'dust' is a bogus line of reasoning.
How about some evidence of explosives?

If the governement would RELEASE THE EVIDENCE we would know if there were explosive residue. Since they are supressing the evidence...

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS/WAS no residue?

Originally posted by Vushta
Can you point out some of my 'flat out lies' to me? You avoided this question. You made the accusation and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.
Thanks.

I started a thread "debunking" you and it was deleted.

VUSHTA... ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS. ESPECIALLY THIS ONE:

What are your qualifications to speak on the subjects of energy, physics, structures or the charachter/quality of other scientists?

How would you like this quantified?

Any way you like...but please explain how you arrive at that elusive "proper amount" of dust.

Let me remind you that this HAS BEEN DONE.

We would use an object called a microscope to examin samples if they were available.

So which is it?..WAS it done..or it WOULD be done..if?

I not only call bull#, I claim that it would be impossible to do. Who exactly measured the particle size..came up with an average size..after calculating the number of particles not concrete?..its bull.

You are asking fo EXACT numbers, something that $20,000,000 and the NIST could NOT provide. They used estimates and tweaked models, but YOU DEMAND that "CTers" provide exacting calculations.

Well..no. You're making up a false problem.

I'm not asking for exact anything. Its you CTs that sqawk and cry 'anomoly' everytime a molecule is displaced.
I just asked for some rule of thumb as to how its been determined that "the dust was too small"

You are trying to use the force of gravity TWICE in your calculation which is just stupid. You use the energy of G to create the dust "during the fall" then you use it again basically stating thath the sudden decelleration that occured at the base caused more pulverization. You are neglecting the fact that pulverization during the collapse would result in a lower velocity upon "impact". Your understand of physics sucks, yet you call Steven a "pseudoscientist"?

Well no.
I'm not using the force of gravity twice or once for that matter.

I'm asking HOW (theres that word that you CTs hate so much)..you're separating the amount of dust created during the collapse initiation ..the 'explosive' part..from the amount created while debris collides with other debris during the collapse and the collision with the earth...and how you arrive at the conclusion..TOO MUCH..TOO MUCH!
"
Velocity of dust lowered?..so what? the pieces that crashed to the ground not in the form of dust would not have lost velocity.

But yet again...the whole line of reasoning of 'the dust..the dust' is bogus.

Is there any evidence of explosives...blast patterns..residues..etc?

The whole.."calculations have been made that show there was not enough available energy to ..blah..blah...has been debunked over and over.


Don't you find it strange that not one person in the field has questioned the amount of dust as being an 'anomoly'? isn't that kinda odd?

And yes..Jones is a pseudoscientist. No other scientists agree with his methods or calculations.....I could be wrong tho..can you direct me to someone who backs his calculations that is not a member of "the truth movement"?

Because it EASILY shows to those trained in physics that the amount of energy expended to cause this phenomenom is exponentially larger than the total potential energy of the system using only gravity.

Wrong.
Who are these 'trained physists" again?

Please explain how Steven is a "pseudoscientist". Please cite an error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings or publications.

His methods and his habit of jumping to conclusions speak for themselves.

Out side of his 911 mumbo-jumbo...what writings are you refering to?

If the governement would RELEASE THE EVIDENCE we would know if there were explosive residue. Since they are supressing the evidence...

This is bogus and you know it.
What are you basing the claim that they're "suppressing the evidence" on?
Release the evidence to WHO?..to be evaluated where?

You know as well as anyone that if the evidence was released and no residue was found the CTs would just scream "FRAUD!"..so why bother?

HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE IS/WAS no residue?

None was detected.

Originally posted by Vushta
Can you point out some of my 'flat out lies' to me? You avoided this question. You made the accusation and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.
Thanks.

I started a thread "debunking" you and it was deleted.

I missed that thread.
You can still point them out to me you know.

My qualification in areas of physics..etc. are the intelligence to know such things are best left to the people qualified to evaluate such topics. Jones is not one of them.
The quality of scientists or adherents to whatever discipline is best evaluated by others of the same discipline who have over time and accomplishment been found to excell in the field.....Jones get no support from these people. That says something.

What other direct questions are you talking about???

Originally posted by devolution
so what are some explanations of the flowing from the side of the building??

www.checktheevidence.com...

[edit on 9-6-2006 by devolution]

REPLY: This makes no sense, since the supporting columns were near the center of the structure. Also, the type of lens in the camera can change the shape of any light source, especially ones that are brighter than a given background.

Magnesium is also present in aircraft frames which, when ignited, actually burns brighter than Aluminum, although, admittedly, it takes a very high temp to ignite both. You link needs to check it's own "evidence."

[edit on 20-7-2006 by zappafan1]

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

This explains what Duhh wrote: "...The mass it what killed the resistance", so he was correct in that statement.
Above from: [link] www.tms.org...

NOTE: Jones was preaching the thermite sermon at the very beginning when none of the information he is now using was available. So clearly he's just searching for any new information that post-justifies a conclusion he drew many months ago.

Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

The above would indicate that the amount of sulfer is considerably lower than what Jones is trying to expound.

For what it's worth, I've been a government certified welder/fabricator for over 30 years. Upon reading what the un-named welding (experts) Jones uses for reference, and also upon looking at the pictures he shows of the angle cuts of the beam, the notion that slag is particular only to thermite cuts is laughable. And what I see that clinches it for me is the striations across the cut edge on the left. The striations are particular to a thin cutting flame (not an incendiary mounted in contact with it). And note how the transverse angle of the striations becomes more acute closer to the photographer. That is entirely consistent with a "burner" standing at the far left corner of the column and having to reach farther as he progresses the cut toward the photographer, the angle of his flame becoming less and less perpendicular to the steel face as he goes.

Edit by Zappafan (me) for addition to post content.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 20-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I have no reason to believe Dr. Jones is not credible. The question would be "is he right"? My opinion of him went up a notch when I read this:

Blaine,
One thing about Jones, his paper only concludes that more study is called for, not that the Administration is guilty of mass murder. IOW, Jones is not willing to go anywhere near as far as, say, Slap Nuts in his estimation of the reality of the events of 9/11.

Though I might disagree with his reasons for coming to this "more study is needed" conclusion, I would agree with the conclusion itself since, to me, it appears that there may have possibly been some whitewashing of non-adherence to construction standards going on in the original investigations. For example, the NIST report mentions the fireproofing, if present, may have been partially removed or dislodged in the impacts. If present?

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I started trying to find information on his work prior to this event and have had no luck so far. I’d like to see if controversy is a pattern with him or not.

...What topic was he published on? His field is a large one and no individual could be qualified in all aspects.

He's done some fairly good work in cold fusion, which BTW had nothing whatsoever to do with energy production (in Jones' case anyway.) He was affiliated with the debunked (and disgraced) scientists that made the cold fusion claim that didn't turn out to be true, up to the point where they went public, whereupon he disassociated himself. In fact, they weren't working closely together, Jones' fusion experiments were completely different that the other team's, but they had agreed to announce simultaneously, which agreement the other team broke, and they were keeping tabs with each other, each trying to get new ideas from the researchers on the other team.

Try a google search on his name with cold fusion.

Also, I'm providing a link to one of his papers below.

Originally posted by Slap NutsPlease explain how Steven is a "pseudoscientist". Please cite an error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings or publications.

Regarding the above two requests, I have a link. But first I want to say that Jones is a physicist, not an engineer, and more importantly not a construction, civil or structuiral engineer and not in any way at any time in his life involved in construction of any kind.

And Slap Nuts, I don't know what you would consider to be a pseudoscientist. I myself consider Erich vonDaniken and Graham Hancock to be pseudoscientists, yet if vonDaniken, a former hotel clerk, were to write a book on hotel clerking, I would not consider it a pseudoscientific work. Similarly, Hancock, a former journalist, might write on journalism, without fear of the pseudoscience label. It is when these gentlemen warp science in areas outside and beyond their expertise that they eneter the pseudoscience realm.

So, there may be no "error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings," precisely in the way that vonDaniken might make no "error or omission in any of his" hotel clerk writings. But Jones is a pseudoscientist by virtue of his completely ignoring any engineering principles in his original paper, his allowing, without comment, such ignoring of engineering principles to continue in the writings of those he has associated himself with, and by virtue of the following article I'm linking you to, where he purports to have found evidence of the visit of Jesus Christ to the Native Americans around 200 AD, exactly like a good little Mormon should believe.

www.physics.byu.edu...

Harte

[edit on 7/20/2006 by Harte]

Originally posted by Harte

So, there may be no "error or omission in any of his PHYSICS based writings,"

How many times are we going to cover the facct that all engineering is based in PHYSICS and CALCULUS.

Point out an error in any of his SCIENCE based writings... including his paper on 9/11.

By the way, attacking a man's religious writings is pathetic.

Einstein wrote about a religion which I think is 100% wrong, but does that negate the theory of relativity?

"Last November Mr. Jones posted a paper online advancing the hypothesis that the airplanes Americans saw crashing into the twin towers were not sufficient to cause their collapse, and that the towers had to have been brought down in a controlled demolition. Now he is the best hope of a movement that seeks to convince the rest of America that elements of the government are guilty of mass murder on their own soil."

"His paper — written by an actual professor who works at an actual research university (not even written by him?) — has made him a celebrity in the conspiracy universe. He is now co-chairman of a group called the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes about 50 professors — more in the humanities than in the sciences — from institutions like Clemson University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Wisconsin."

Near a corner of the south tower, at around 9:50 a.m., a cascade of a yellow-hot substance started spewing out of the building. The National Institute of Standards and Technology says in its report that the substance was most likely molten aluminum from the airplane fuselage. But Mr. Jones points out that aluminum near its melting point is a pale-silver color, not yellow. By his reckoning, then, that spew is a thermite reaction in plain sight.

NOTE: Since the outer columns were not weight-bearing, placing thermite/thermate there would serve no useful purpose, as it would not have an effect leading to the collapse.

Occasionally, he (Thomas W. Eagar, a materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) says, given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can react violently, à la thermite. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building, Mr. Eagar says, it is entirely possible that this is what happened.

Others have brought up this notion as well, so Mr. Jones has carried out experiments in his lab trying to get small quantities of molten aluminum to react with rust. He has not witnessed the reaction and so rules it out. But Mr. Eagar says this is just a red herring: Accidental thermite reactions are a well-known phenomenon, he says. It just takes a lot of exposed surface area for the reaction to start.

NOTE: It would be quite impossible to replicate the exact circumstances/condition relative to the sparks seen, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by zappafan1]

I gotta hand it to you Vushta. You've been successfull again at being hypocritical.

Originally posted by Vushta

To try and dodge the truth by referring me to pseudoscientists like Jones is like the desperate move of a religious fanatic trying to prove the bible true by asking questions of the Pope.

I guess a professor of physics at an accredited college makes one a pseudoscientist?

You're not going to get a reasoned answer. You'll only get 'proof' of the 'truth' of the bible by being reference to other passages of the bible.
With 'pope Jones" all you'll get is references to HIS calculations as proof. Like strong adherence to a particular religion, all you'll get are answers that work only in the limitations of the theory. All other information will be convienently handwaved away as not important.

You don't think that what you are saying Jones might do, you are actually doing yourself. No hand waving from you? You take the cake here my friend.

But as I stated before..the 'dust' is a bogus line of reasoning.
How about some evidence of explosives?
Let me guess..they were special explosives that don't leave blast patterns or residue.

Can you show me if an actual study was done to determine if explosives were present? I know NIST says something like no explosives were used but can someone show the actual test data that shows no chemical traces of explosives?

Can you point out some of my 'flat out lies' to me? You avoided this question. You made the accusation and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.
Thanks.

I don't know about out right lies, but there is something defenately about you that I don't understand...I'll just leave it at that.

Originally posted by zappafan1
NOTE: Since the outer columns were not weight-bearing, placing thermite/thermate there would serve no useful purpose, as it would not have an effect leading to the collapse.

Are you talking about the outter lattice or the corner columns?

Originally posted by zappafan1
NOTE: It would be quite impossible to replicate the exact circumstances/condition relative to the sparks seen, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Spontaneous Thermite reactions? What are the realtive odds of this occurence? Has it ever been witnessed or replicated in any fashion?

Originally posted by zappafan1

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

Most... Pretty... not really... 99%.... Sounds like a nice way to say that there is disagreement.

Does he list who "most engineers" are? How is he speking for millions of engineers? What is his source?

Mr. Corotis is the recipient of MANY gov't grants... I think his motives can easily be brought into question. He is also a member of the "The Emergency Manager of the Future Rountable"... Interesting... he is not an "emergency manager", he is a civil engineer... by the standards being set here his opinion is invalid in this work?



[edit on 20-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by zappafan1

NOTE: Since the outer columns were not weight-bearing, placing thermite/thermate there would serve no useful purpose, as it would not have an effect leading to the collapse.

Huh? According to some sources, the outer columns held as much as 50% of the weight. How could they be non load-bearing?

NOTE: It would be quite impossible to replicate the exact circumstances/condition relative to the sparks seen, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'd like to see Eager show us where natural thermite reactions have occured since he states that they are well known.

Ross B. Corotis, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the editorial board at the journal Structural Safety, says that most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center. "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details," he says.

What about the other 1%?

I guess a professor of physics at an accredited college makes one a pseudoscientist?

Yup. Makes THAT one a pseudoscientist. Do I really have to explain why?

You're not going to get a reasoned answer. You'll only get 'proof' of the 'truth' of the bible by being reference to other passages of the bible.
With 'pope Jones" all you'll get is references to HIS calculations as proof. Like strong adherence to a particular religion, all you'll get are answers that work only in the limitations of the theory. All other information will be convienently handwaved away as not important.

You don't think that what you are saying Jones might do, you are actually doing yourself. No hand waving from you? You take the cake here my friend.

I'm not suggesting thats what he and other CTs MIGHT do..I'm stating thats what they WILL do.

What exactly is it that you think I'm handwaving away?..ideological bias masquerading as science?..it waves itself away in the light of actual facts.

Can you show me if an actual study was done to determine if explosives were present? I know NIST says something like no explosives were used but can someone show the actual test data that shows no chemical traces of explosives?

I think this logic is flawed.

There are no studies that looked for explosive residue......there was no evidence of explosives found so why look for residue?

How would that have been done?----"Hey Pete--grab a piece of steel and lets look for explosive reside.--which one?---doesn't matter, grab that one over there, it as good as any"

This makes no sense. It would be like a detective witnesses a homicide with a hand gun and then if tests are not done to rule out poisoning of the victim instead someone cries "cover-up"

Can you point out some of my 'flat out lies' to me? You avoided this question. You made the accusation and I'd like the opportunity to defend myself.
Thanks.

I don't know about out right lies, but there is something defenately about you that I don't understand...I'll just leave it at that.


I'll take that as a resounding "No."

Originally posted by Vushta

Yup. Makes THAT one a pseudoscientist. Do I really have to explain why?

Why? Because he's a physics professor and is using physics to back up his claims?

I'm not suggesting thats what he and other CTs MIGHT do..I'm stating thats what they WILL do.

So, you are psychic now?

What exactly is it that you think I'm handwaving away?..ideological bias masquerading as science?..it waves itself away in the light of actual facts.

Well we have supplied you with a physics professor who could answer your questions and you refuse to contact him because you feel he will lie to you. Wave good bye now.

I think this logic is flawed.

There are no studies that looked for explosive residue......there was no evidence of explosives found so why look for residue?

Hmmm....no evidence of explosives found but no studies done? How would one come to this conclusion without doing testing?

How would that have been done?----"Hey Pete--grab a piece of steel and lets look for explosive reside.--which one?---doesn't matter, grab that one over there, it as good as any"

Exactly. Not just random pieces. There were pieces that had steel evaporated. Why not do tests on those pieces? Oh, but evaporated steel isn't evidence of explosives or anything out of the ordinary so no need to test it.

This makes no sense. It would be like a detective witnesses a homicide with a hand gun and then if tests are not done to rule out poisoning of the victim instead someone cries "cover-up"

No, it's like a detective failing to take fingerprints on the gun, gun powder residue tests on the suspect etc.

I'll take that as a resounding "No."

I don't want to look for quotes of you but I will say that you do contradict yourself, show how you are biased as all get out, and also hypocritical. Enough said.

Why? Because he's a physics professor and is using physics to back up his claims?

Where is it that you lose grip of the logic?..I'll type slowly..He's commenting on things he has no training in. He's drawing conclusions based on information he doesn't understand.

So, you are psychic now?

No. The pattern of deflective defense is so very consistant that its accurately quite predictable.

Well we have supplied you with a physics professor who could answer your questions and you refuse to contact him because you feel he will lie to you. Wave good bye now.

I don't think he will lie to me. Where did you get that idea?
HE probably believes the crap he's spewing so he wouldn't be lying anymore than the religious zealot is lying when he tells you the sky will open up and angels pour out someday if he really believes it. Believing something doesn't make it factually accurate.

Hmmm....no evidence of explosives found but no studies done? How would one come to this conclusion without doing testing?

I don't know if you're joking here or not.
The testing would be done after some evidence of a blast was found..some evidence...ANY evidence.

Exactly. Not just random pieces. There were pieces that had steel evaporated. Why not do tests on those pieces? Oh, but evaporated steel isn't evidence of explosives or anything out of the ordinary so no need to test it.

What makes you think tests were not done on those? Got a link to that information on evaporated steel? There are sooo many other things that would have to be present in order to point to explosives and a cause of bringing down the towers and those other things don't exist.

No, it's like a detective failing to take fingerprints on the gun, gun powder residue tests on the suspect etc.

You missed the anology.

I don't want to look for quotes of you but I will say that you do contradict yourself, show how you are biased as all get out, and also hypocritical. Enough said.

....and true to form, backed up by the "evidence standard" of the CT.