thoughts on Prof. Jones proof of thermite/mate

The quote at the end Griff is a paragraph taken from the author of article from the link, only the top paragraph is mine, im a noob at external tags business

Yeah, I realized that after you edited you post to say you were having trouble. Anyway, that was a nice find. thanks for the information.

I'm out of here for the time being. See ya'll later.

Originally posted by micpsi
Reply to Billybob's comment:

"it amazes me how far some people will stretch their rationalization 'skills' to try and mask the obvious truth.

there was molten steel. accept it.

steel getting to that state would also retain it's heat longer than a metal with a lower melting point, so lower temperatures, and, say melted babbit ot aluminum, don't cut it as an explanation. (also, because these metals are not yellow hot when they begin to flow)"

No, it would not. Even a physics freshman could tell you that that the rate of loss of heat from a hot body depends on its thermal conductivity and temperature gradient. Body 1 could be at a much higher temperature initially than body 2 and yet become cooler after a given time if its thermal conductivity was much larger.
Pure aluminum has a thermal conductivity of 222 W/m-C and cast iron has a thermal conductivity of 55 W/m-C.
www.engineersedge.com...
Heat therefore drains from aluminum about four times more quickly than it does from iron.

i said steel cools more slowly. i said it would retain it's heat longer. you said, i was wrong, and then proved i was right.

thanks!?

LOL!

Jones has NO conclusive evidence for thermate. First of all, his single sample was not random. Secondly, it could have been contaminated by sulphur released into the air by the burning of gypsum (calcium sulphate) from office wall material. Thirdly, the metal spherules are not necessarily evidence of steel being melted by thermate. High explosives create temperatures briefly of several thousand degrees, so the iron spherules in Jones' dust sample could have been created from explosives blasting steel girders or columns. For more details, see my critique at
janedoe0911.tripod.com...

The well-known photo of an angle-cut column at Ground Zero with molten iron slag on its cut edges is often claimed to be evidence of thermite. This is completely wrong. See
www.debunking911.com...
for a comprehensive debunking of this idea.

while i agree jones has not proven there was thermite/ate, i do not agree that much hinges on it.
the important thing, to me, is the blast radius, pulverization, power output/vs potential energy, and weird anomalies, like randomly burnt(and half burnt) cars, white flashes, and demolition waves down the sides of the building going faster earthward than debris falling on the outside and then, collapsing cores, and, of course, all the cats sitting around that look like they just ate the canary.

i stay away from conman sense's 'debunking911' site. it is an elaborate exercise in logical fallacies, misdirection and outright lies.

Based on information provided by a former Japanese bank employee, who said that the 81st floor of the South Tower was filled with server-size Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) batteries, Christopher Bollyn has suggested
www.bollyn.com...
www.iamthewitness.com...
that the cells were filled with thermate. This was the floor that Flight 175 (or its surrogate) hit, so the fires could easily have melted the lead and released the thermate, which then reacted with surrounding steel, causing it to melt. But how could this be effective in severely weakening many girders far from the impact zone if all the thermate had been contained on one floor? To facilitate the near free-fall collapse of many floors (and remember: destruction of floors started well above the plane impact point in the South Tower), thermate had to be distributed on many other floors as well, if, indeed it was ever used at all (see my thread here for my rebuttal of Jones' claim that it was). But the thermate powder could never have reached many other floors if it was all sitting on the 81st floor, even allowing for some scattering by the impact of the plane and resulting fires. So what was the point of it being kept on one floor?! Bollyn's suggestion makes sense of molten iron pouring out of the 81st floor - the floor where the batteries were housed. But why the plotters would load only one floor with thermate does not make sense, as it would not have helped very much in weakening other floors and thus the complete collapse of the tower! On the other hand, if we suppose that thermate was planted in many parts of the skyscraper in order to help destruction of the whole tower, what was the point of having so much of it on one floor, hidden in batteries?! Bollyn's theory does not add up.

Bollyn's suggestion that there was thermate loaded in the North Tower that accounts for the white smoke (aluminium oxide, so Jones speculates) coming from the explosion out of the east side equally does not make sense. Why bother to have so much thermate on one floor (the 95th), much of which was scattered outside the building after the explosion if Bollyn's and Jones' interpretation of the white smoke as the aluminium oxide in thermate is to be believed, when it would have been more sensible to have thermate distributed over many floors, so that it could melt steel girders in them and facilitate near free-fall of all the floors? Indeed, the tower could never have collapsed completely if all the thermate had been loaded on just one floor. How could what was left inside the tower after the impact get distributed to all the dozens of floors below the impact point?! Anyway, there is really not all that much difference in lightness of colour between the smoke from the north face of the North Tower and that issuing from the east side - see photo at
www.iamthewitness.com...
The claim that the white smoke has to be the aluminium oxide in thermate is weak. Even if the difference of colour be accepted as real and not merely due to the differences in density of the smoke or how sunlight was being scattered, it could merely reflect the difference between oxygen-starved, weak fire, which generates black smoke, and a much hotter fire in a different area of the tower, which was creating white smoke. It does not necessarily indicate that thermate was burning! Anyway, if it had been, why did no molten metal pour out of the North Tower at the plane impact level, as it did in the South Tower?

The same applies to the South Tower. Bollyn notices that the smoke issuing from the south side (impact face) is white, whereas the fireball issuing from the south-east face is much darker. He fails to understand that comparatively little jet fuel exploded outside the impact area (most was carried inside), so the smoke and concrete dust issuing from the hole was not darkened by the soot which the kerosene vapour fireball turned into as it burnt and exited from the side of the tower. The difference between the colours of the smoke is not necessarily evidence for thermate.

I believe Bollyn made his suggestion to give support to Professor Steven Jones' identification of the molten metal pouring out of the South Tower as iron. They have worked together on this problem. But his idea is wrong, because it would have made no sense to load just one floor with thermate. Even with damage from fire and the plane's collision, the powder could not have been distributed to any more than a few of the 110 floors. How Bollyn thinks this would lead to steel girders many floors further down being weakened because parts of them melted is beyond me! It makes no sense of the very purpose that Professor Jones has claimed for the thermate he believes he has detected, namely, to ensure complete destruction of the tower.

I think the lead batteries on the 81st floor were real batteries that melted in the fire, so that it was molten lead (melting point = 327.5 degrees Centigrade - below the temperatures of the fires) that poured out of the 81st floor - the very floor that the batteries were located! Not coincidental, I suggest. Bollyn makes much of the fact that he was told by the Japanese bank employee that the batteries were never turned on, suggesting they were not real ones. But, if they were meant only to provide backup electric current to computers during a power failure, what is suspicious about that?

arent most modern battery backup batteries comprised of lithium ion or nickel metal hydride?

i could be mistaken but that seems right and i have no idea what they would look like melted or burning.

also, as to the famous angle cut column, ask any welder who does multistory buildings what it is without any lead in just ask "how was this cut" and he'll tell you oxy acetalyne torch and explain how.

seems to me at least also that thermite/mate would have a tough time cutting a straight line (and wouldnt leave the tell tale groves that come from a torch flame) and should actually make a somewhat beveled cut angled downward from the inside to the outside...i wish i could draw that but i cant really..other than to say the cut "might" look like this "/|"

cuz due to simple caloric theory the steel wont go to 2500degrees instantly and so the burning would try to go towards the ground causing the material (steel and thermite/mate) to flow downwards melting at less than a perfect right angle.

thats just a S.W.A.G though.

Originally posted by billybob
while i agree jones has not proven there was thermite/ate, i do not agree that much hinges on it.
the important thing, to me, is the blast radius, pulverization, power output/vs potential energy, and weird anomalies, like randomly burnt(and half burnt) cars, white flashes, and demolition waves down the sides of the building going faster earthward than debris falling on the outside and then, collapsing cores, and, of course, all the cats sitting around that look like they just ate the canary.

i can respect that, i was only trying to get a discussion going about this one aspect of 911 though. i REALLY feel that if we're going to find the truth, be it an alt. theory or even the official one, we have to look at all aspects of all the theories. the offical reports been picked to death, but anyone with a random crazy, possibly THC induced idea is given full credibility without any real thought put into it. seems that for some all you have to do is say "the govt did it" and boom anyone who believes the govt did it will rally around you and support you 100% regardless of your theory. you could claim it was dragons that the govt had been cloning and raising in secret and people would support you.

so, all I want to do is when i or anyone else sees an objective problem with a theory or someone who proclaims a theory is lets hold it to the same standard people are holding the govts story to.

if eyewitnesses are good enough for one point but not for another lets call that out.

if someones calculations are off or their research methods are sloppy, ltes call them out on it.

same goes for "experts". i know demo and had i come out in support of a CD theory id be the poster boy for the truth movement but since i disagree im a shill or disinfo agent. if what i post holds water does it matter if im what i claim to be? if something i post is inaccurate, call me on it...ill reresearch it and if im wrong ill admit it.

i ramble but you see what i mean? these things seem simple and obvious to me but i could be wrong...im adult enough to admit that lol

Originally posted by billybob
i stay away from conman sense's 'debunking911' site. it is an elaborate exercise in logical fallacies, misdirection and outright lies.

Spoken from the mouth of a REAL "truth" seeker. Stick to Prison Planet and INFOWARS.com and you will be fed all you need to be filled with lies and false claim.

If anyone were REALLY in search for the truth, they explore ALL options and opinions and THEN make an educated decision. This is another example of someone WANTING there to be a conspiracy.

edit to add... if you have never been there, how would you know if there were "outright lies" in it? I challange you Billybob to find one "outright lie" on that page and back it up with proof.

My guess is, you wont be able to.



[edit on 15-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Damocles,

Again. You earn my respect. Well said. I also say that when I'm wrong with anything, please call me out. I'd rather be called out on something than to be ignorant on a subject. We're all human after all.

[edit on 6/15/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Spoken from the mouth of a REAL "truth" seeker. Stick to Prison Planet and INFOWARS.com and you will be fed all you need to be filled with lies and false claim.
\.

i think maybe you'd be interested to know, i also rarely visit alex jones' sites.
although, i do respect the man, and would stand by him, i get very little on his site that i haven't found elsewhere.

rex84, for example, is information uncovered during the iran contra scandal. it's real. concentration camps in america. they're real.
the nazi lineage of the bushes. it's real.
the elite bloodlines' interbreeding. real.
all that aside, i'm not a historian, and i wasn't much of a conspiracy theorist before 911(although, i've ALWAYS blamed the BANKS! those are the bastards that need to be knocked off their high horse).

i am a genuine truthseeker. sometimes, i think i can't handle the truth. it's pretty out there. knowing that you don't know is the first step. all subsequent steps are presaged by the same condition.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by billybob]

so, just curious, anyone else have any further thoughts on prof jones' research methods or the use of his "findings" as PROOF of anything...anywhere?

just curious

I can't really add "further thoughts", but i definatly feel that Prof Jones is not legit, specifically because he was asked about more exotic weapons being used, ie the micronuke, and simply denied all the evidence which pointed towards something more than just thermate.

Thermate simply does not account for all the observed evidence, and also the lack of, eg over 1000 bodies still unaccounted for, aswell as tonnes of office equipment, and general components of the towers themselves.

The debry pile of the twin towers is a joke. Nearly all of the towers contents were converted into that giant dust cloud.

The answers to the O.P. are simple.

Steel samples from the WTC's were not hard to get a hold of. In fact many many pieces of the metal were taken by iron workers, and other people, for memories.

Evidence:




There is no doubt the pieces actually came from the WTC wreckage, simply because there is no reason Steven Jones couldn't actually have a sample. On the scientific side, I believe Steven Jones can compare the metal's composition of both of his examples, to see if they both came from the same source. The age of the metal can be identified by examining the surface properties of the metal, so you can get an idea of how long the metal was exposed to the world and the elements. Also, the environment the metal was in could also be identified simply by its surface properties. I believe Steven Jones would notice if he was actually testing a sample that wasn't from WTC, because it would be obvious.

Also, Steven Jones ran many tests. I believe they tested actual thermite reactions on the steel and got similar sulfur read-outs. There is no reason for anyone to believe that Steven Jones is wrong, and that the amount of sulfur on the metal was normal. Although sulfur can be found in many things, it can not always be found in such high concentration such as that found by Steven Jones. There is no reason for such a high concentration of sulfur to be found inside of, not outside of, the metal.

Originally posted by 11 11


There is no doubt the pieces actually came from the WTC wreckage, simply because there is no reason Steven Jones couldn't actually have a sample.

then where is his chain of custody data? thats crime scene 101 for anyone trying to make a case based on forensic evidence. why skip it? so, yes, there is doubt as to whether it came from wtc or not. however, in his september 06 paper he does list additional tests he did on samples that he DID provide, if not chain of custody, then at least some backround on them which DOES at least lend a little more credibility to his "case".

in the rest of your post you said "i believe" three times and used "believe" in general four times. belief doesnt equal proof or there would be no debate on the existence of god. but you did add credence to a point i raised in my debate, in the end it comes down to faith.

so, rather than just go by what i believe, ill stick to what can be shown as fact.

and that is that at this time there is no proof there was thermite at the wtc, in his 9-06 paper jones bases nearly his whole case on photo and video evidence. hes done some laboratory tests which were, amusing.

but there is still a lot to question about his lab practices and results.

there is NO baseline listed for what "normal" sulpher is. his attemtps to rule out contamination are poor. his chain of custody could be easily torn to shreds by any lawyer in any court room (unless theres a lot he isnt publishing which only hurts his credibility overall)

these are basics. as a professor he should know better.

and i wont even derail my own thread by tearing apart his understanding of explosives in his 9-06 paper.

but hey, go read it yourself: Dr jone's 9-06 paper

the ONLY thing i agree with him on is that there SHOULD be an independant investigation. but theres two HUGE problems with that ever happening. can we all agree on what "independant" is? who's going to pay for it? if its the govt no one will buy that its "independant".

Originally posted by Damocles
then where is his chain of custody data? thats crime scene 101 for anyone trying to make a case based on forensic evidence. why skip it? so, yes, there is doubt as to whether it came from wtc or not. however, in his september 06 paper he does list additional tests he did on samples that he DID provide, if not chain of custody, then at least some backround on them which DOES at least lend a little more credibility to his "case".

Here, [email protected] , ask him yourself. I am 100% sure he will give you 100% proof of how he got the metal sample. There is absolutly no reason for Steven Jones to lie, or to mislead anyone.

Originally posted by Damocles
in the rest of your post you said "i believe" three times and used "believe" in general four times. belief doesnt equal proof or there would be no debate on the existence of god. but you did add credence to a point i raised in my debate, in the end it comes down to faith.

so, rather than just go by what i believe, ill stick to what can be shown as fact.

Damocles, I highly suggest you look up the word "believe".

www.answers.com...

Although it could be used in the manner you claim (a belief in God), I did not use the word in that regard. I used it in the manner of "believing the facts I was presented with". You can give the same facts to two different people, and they could both possibly "believe" something different than each other.

Originally posted by Damocles
there is NO baseline listed for what "normal" sulpher is. his attemtps to rule out contamination are poor.

Damocles, there is a baseline for what "normal" sulpher is. The baseline is the simple fact the structural steel should not have any sulpher in its elemental composition. What you fail to understand is that the metal itself was not just tested externaly, but internaly. There is absolutly no reason for sulpher to be found internaly in this metal at all. The only way it could have gotten there is if the metal was melted and the sulpher was trapped inside during this molten stage.

Read this:
elmtreeforge.blogspot.com...

This is why there should be no sulphur in "structural steel", yet Steven Jones found a high consentration of it.

sorry i cant find the link but in one of the articles i read concerning the thermite/mate scenario they mentioned that .13 lbs of thermite/lb of steel would be needed to weaken the joints in the towers.

does anyone have any information regarding the validity of this claim? it would mean that an impossible amount of thermite/mate would be needed to bring the towers down.

thanks in advance.

11 11 um, could you tell us then exactly how much sulpher he found? i mean was it 10ppm? 100ppm? i cant seem to find it.

also, you do know that the "coke" they use for making iron into steel contains sulpher right? hense need for a baseline. how much is "normal"?

becuase none of this appears in his published paper from september of 06 that i linked to in my last post

by NOT presenting these little bits of data, he calls the validity of his own "findings" into question.

also, i never implied he was flat out lying. but, i DO think its possible that in his zeal to prove his theory, he may have beein duped by someone else who would love to discredit the govt. so i DO think its possible that someone else may have given him samples that may not be legit.

if you noticed though, i DID give him some credit for at least listing a source for the samples used in the 9-06 paper...or are you just so much more interested in arguing with me that you fail to notice when i see a flaw in something i stated and corrected myself?


jprophet: remember, you dont calculate based on ALL the steel unless youre trying to melt all of it. you wuold first have to establish how large an area you had to melt through then take a "cross section" of that area and figure out how much that would weigh instead of figuring for the whole column.