New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

[Sizzler]

Every issue can be argued. That doesn't mean a valid argument can be made for a particular point.

Here's a challenge. It's 2008. Truthers have made hundreds of claims regarding 9/11. Name one significant claim they got right.

One issue I haven't seen resolved is the microspheres.

This of course is assuming Jones is not falsifying his data.

No explanation has satisfied that these spheres are natural for the WTC collapses.

I think this claim can be easily tested and rejected or accepted.

Why hasn't anyone done so?

 

[beachnut]

Sure.

FEMA and JOM both reported steel pieces that melted.

Sulfur was involved so the melting point was lowered to 1000 degrees.

So a debatable issue is;

How did rubble fires get this hot?

Is the gypsium (sp?) a realistic source of elemental sulfur? I mean, is it fair to make an assumption that sulfur freed itself from the gypsium and was able to play a role in lowering the melting point of steel?

I am not an expert so I have to depend on others. Thus far I haven't seen a paper that seriously addresses these questions.

But this does not mean I must accept the alternative.

It just means I have more questions.

No, no steel melted. Sorry, melted steel did not make the WTC fall. The eutectic change was microscopic and a topic for corrosion, 9/11 truth made up the rest.

No one can show you melted steel, pools of melted steel. Ask 9/11 truth to show you?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Still trying to back in explosives I fear.

But the mass did get larger. Darn, that means what happen on 9/11 with a full scale model was due to impact and fire. Your talk is bordering on BS now. I wonder what time you use for the real fall time? I mean do you discount the 60 to 80 stories of core standing for 20 to 30 seconds? Do you discount the sections still standing? Do you understand the 9/11 truth demolition charges were silent and left people alive in the WTC Core? You are one character.

You could help clean up the out right lies in the journal you post in! The lies that surround your work make the credibility of your work go down the drain.

But you sure have no idea what caused the extra energy for your false assumptions listed. OMG, are you a thermite fantasy guy? That is it. Thermite. OMG. Confess early. Trying to back in thermite. Now it is clear why your research is so shallow and you fail to answer real easy questions.

I mean you joined Jones! You are a thermite guy and you are going to prove it or die shaving reports.

cool

Of course it's possible I have calculated incorrectly. You may notice I asked if someone could confirm it. I think you mentioned that you had a spread sheet. Why not calculate it and we can compare?

 

[Newtons Bit]

One issue I haven't seen resolved is the microspheres.

This of course is assuming Jones is not falsifying his data.

No explanation has satisfied that these spheres are natural for the WTC collapses.

I think this claim can be easily tested and rejected or accepted.

Why hasn't anyone done so?

There's a bunch of threads on this right now. There are a number of different things that can cause these spherules.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102912 for starters.

 

[Sizzler]

No, no steel melted. Sorry, melted steel did not make the WTC fall. The eutectic change was microscopic and a topic for corrosion, 9/11 truth made up the rest.

No one can show you melted steel, pools of melted steel. Ask 9/11 truth to show you?

What is the difference between intergranular melting and melting?

JOM reports intergranular melting.

This is was surprising according to the engineering community.

I assume you have seen the report in JOM.


So can you explain to me how this is not melting and ONLY oxidation.

 

[beachnut]

One issue I haven't seen resolved is the microspheres.

This of course is assuming Jones is not falsifying his data.

No explanation has satisfied that these spheres are natural for the WTC collapses.

I think this claim can be easily tested and rejected or accepted.

Why hasn't anyone done so?

I have them in my fire place. Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11; he does not like something about someone and he made it up.

Oops. You missed the best idea yet. Toner for printing; laser printer brought down the WTC. Micro spheres! Take a look.

Rejected.

 

[beachnut]

What is the difference between intergranular melting and melting?

JOM reports intergranular melting.

This is was surprising according to the engineering community.

I assume you have seen the report in JOM.

So can you explain to me how this is not melting and ONLY oxidation.

Who said this was a smoking gun? Do you understand eutectic change? Do you understand the temperatures it occurs at? Do you understand this is a small issue. Post your source. The truther one first.

WTC7 sample;.

"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. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."

The guys were studying the steel, not the fact WTC7 fell due to fire. No smoking gun, just corrosion these guys found strange; as in they are not sure why. But no, not due to thermite, not due to explosives. But do you have some fuel with sulfur in it?

You do know there were tons of fuel in the WTC7 with sulfur in it? I wonder if that counts that the WTC7 burned for a long time. One sample, that was studied. Wow

But then 9/11 truth over looks real studies and lies about independent investigations into the WTC!

Based on the metallurgical investigation of the steel recovered from the WTC collapse site, it was determined that the mechanical properties and chemistry of the steels used in the World Trade Center towers were consistent with the specifications called for in the building plans. Microstructurally, the lower-strength exterior wall and core-column steels were ferrite-pearlite control-rolled steels. Higher-strength steels in the exterior wall columns were quenched and tempered. Measured mechanical properties at high strain rates, necessary for modeling the impact of the aircraft, were similar to other ordinary construction steels. Neither high-rate tests nor recovered components gave any evidence of brittle failure. The high-temperature mechanical properties, necessary for modeling the response to the fires, were consistent with other construction steels.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html
They usually mention real studies to support lies and false information like the eutectic change no one would understand, just through it out and hope it fools other people who lack knowledge that they are liars, or at least false information slingers. Like this conclusion posted from a real journal. You will not see Jones' thermite nonsense in a real journal.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Because their belief is that 9/11 is an inside job and done with therm*te, explosives or space beams and that anything that says otherwise is obviously incorrect, regardless of scientific merit.

Is that why my fall time is different than Bazant's?

But seriously, I would appreciate if you could check my fall time for "crush-down": conservation of momentum at each floor, 500MJ loss per floor, no sheading from upper part, 50% sheading from lower part.

 

[Hokulele]

I am not an expert so I have to depend on others. Thus far I haven't seen a paper that seriously addresses these questions.

But this does not mean I must accept the alternative.

It just means I have more questions.

I am not a metallurgist (nor do I play one on television), so I will leave that question to those with more knowledge.

But the bit I quoted here does have some relevance. For the past 2 or 3 pages, you seem to have been debating what makes someone an expert. In this post, you are directly stating that you must rely on others, as you are no expert (congrats, that admission alone puts you in a different category than most laymen). How do you determine which experts and which theories can be trusted?

The easy cop-out would be to say you do not trust anyone (although you have quoted Jones and Kuttler earlier in the thread as sources of information you appear to accept). However, endless questioning will get you nowhere but confused. At a certain point in time, you will have to decide which ideas are most supported by the evidence, and which are not. An analogy that has come up many times is the debate between evolution and creationism. When you examine the evidence, where does it point?

To get right down to it, that is the purpose of this forum as a whole (I recommend you do some browsing outside of the CT sub-forum. The Science sub-forum has some fascinating discussions at the moment). The reason I post here (the JREF forum in general) is to learn how to think and how to apply evidence to theories.

Please note, when I say evidence, I do not necessarily mean visual observations. People are notoriously poor at interpreting what they see. There is a great deal of physical evidence above and beyond video regarding the events of September 11, and much of that is available through the resources you have been given. As a biologist, I would hope that you understand this. One example that came up very recently in this sub-forum was the visual interpretation of a hyrax. Just by looking at it, one might assume it is a rodent (and one would be wrong ).


ETA: Gah, the thread has gone elsewhere. I type too slow.

 

[LashL]

Lash, Sizzler is from Canada.

She/he is? Ack.

I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to her/his posts (for reasons that are probably obvious) so I guess I just missed her/his posts that spelled that out, but it strikes me as more than passing strange that she/he would not just say so when asked directly about the country from which she/he is posting.

Sheesh. I certainly wouldn't tap dance around such a simple and straightforward question, and it seems very odd for any poster to do so.

Weird, that.

I do not know where in Canada (it's kinda big in case you hadn't noticed. )

Hee hee - yes, having travelled it from coast to coast, I have certainly noticed that it's kinda big.

Aside from that, oh, yes, it is also a very cool, wonderful, and infinitely interesting place chockablock with all manner of fascinating history and such.

But I still don't understand why someone in Canada would be so reluctant to simply say so when asked directly.

Very strange, that, unless she/he is a truther trying very hard to appear to be a skeptic.

ETA: The mark of woo is definitely strong here.

 

[Sizzler]

No one has shown me a replica of a microsphere that totally matches the ones Jones' found.

Fly ash seems to be the best so far considering it would turn into a sphere due to air tension.

If they are natural, fly ash microspheres should be easily collected from other buildings dust.

Can anyone point to a paper or a blog that refutes Jones' claim to a high degree.

Not just, it could have been this, maybe it was that.

 

[Hokulele]

She/he is? Ack.

Linky.

And in rereading this, I realize that he/she is Canadian, but that does not mean that he/she currently resides in Canada.

[/ pedant]

Hee hee - yes, having travelled it from coast to coast, I have certainly noticed that it's kinda big.

Aside from that, oh, yes, it is also a very cool, wonderful, and infinitely interesting place chockablock with all manner of fascinating history and such.

But I still don't understand why someone in Canada would be reluctant so simply say so when asked directly.

Very strange, that, unless she/he is a truther trying very hard to appear to be a skeptic.

I have seen pieces/parts of Canada, and someday hope to visit even more.

 

[Sizzler]

Who said this was a smoking gun? Do you understand eutectic change? Do you understand the temperatures it occurs at? Do you understand this is a small issue. Post your source. The truther one first.

You are very difficult to communicate with due to your hostility.

I did not claim it is a smoking gun.

I claimed JOM reported temperatures of 1000 degrees celcius. They reported intergranular melting. I don't fully understand how intergranular melting is different that melting, but the temperature of 1000 degrees celcius remains.

So, how did the rubble piles get so hot?

That is the debate.

Not a smoking gun, just one debate I was asked to source.

 

[Stellafane]

Hmm, lessee...new poster with "questions"...thread grows to seven pages within a couple of days...why oh why do I get the inescapable feeling that I've been here before, and that even without looking, I can probably tell how this thread has evolved?

 

[Pardalis]

One issue I haven't seen resolved is the microspheres.

You keep jumping from one conspiracy claim to the other. Are you sure you're not a truther?

 

[Hokulele]

Hmm, lessee...new poster with "questions"...thread grows to seven pages within a couple of days...why oh why do I get the inescapable feeling that I've been here before, and that even without looking, I can probably tell how this thread has evolved?

It didn't evolve, it was intelligently designed!

 

[Sizzler]

You keep jumping from one conspiracy claim to the other. Are you sure you're not a truther?

I was asked to source these things.

I am perfectly happy staying on topic.

 

[beachnut]

Is that why my fall time is different than Bazant's?

But seriously, I would appreciate if you could check my fall time for "crush-down": conservation of momentum at each floor, 500MJ loss per floor, no sheading from upper part, 50% sheading from lower part.

Is your fall time the same as 9/11? Better question. What would that time be? What is the actual time of collapse for impact and fire damage? Just watch 9/11. So when your time matches, you got it?

 

[Pardalis]

I was asked to source these things.

I am perfectly happy staying on topic.

That's not what I meant. It seems your questions about the collapse all seem to be generated from conspiracy theorists.

Nobody in the world is making a fuss about the microspheres other than truthers. That's because they are advancing that the towers were CDed with thermate/ite. For no other reason the presence of microspheres would be an issue or suspicious to anyone.

 

[beachnut]

You are very difficult to communicate with due to your hostility.

I did not claim it is a smoking gun.

I claimed JOM reported temperatures of 1000 degrees celcius. They reported intergranular melting. I don't fully understand how intergranular melting is different that melting, but the temperature of 1000 degrees celcius remains.

So, how did the rubble piles get so hot?

That is the debate.

Not a smoking gun, just one debate I was asked to source.

It is not hostility, these things can be looked up on line. Looks like you fell into a pile of 9/11 truth junk. If you have real questions you will ignore the BS and check the facts. If not, then you are a Jones thermite truther. I added the real source for you, you did not post a source yet; I found many WOO sites of truther spewing the eutectic change, if you look at the piece of A36 steel you will see it was burnt to death! What it looks like to me.

9/11 truth movement takes stuff and pushes lies. They post this report http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html, and make it a smoking gun kind of BS truth thing. You were fooled!

You could search for these topic, even on line; if you stay away from truther sites, or at least read and understand their refreercnce; just look up their own referdcnec; you will find many of the truther sites can be debunked by their own refrercnece. Funny stuff. And if you read and understand what the truth sited say, you will see, like in the case of " section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure...", they have no conclusion but to make you thiink there is something wrong. OMG look what the one of the web sites of WOO does with the JOM stuff

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Wow, liars are 9/11 truth. Look up the junk they just make up.
9/11 woo sites says

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis,

The truth is

During the recovery effort after September 11, and before NIST began its collapse investigation, volunteers from FEMA, ASCE, NIST, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) worked at the four steel recycling facilities to identify and collect steel members important to the investigation. They focused on identifying pieces that the aircraft struck or were obviously burned, as well as pieces from the fire and impact zone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology arranged to have these pieces shipped to its facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation team members cataloged the items and attempted to identify their original locations in the towers, using their dimensions and markings.

Truth is not "9/11 truth"; it is what you find on your own, using your brain to guide you. Understanding people are not telling the truth because they have fooled you. You are asking 9/11 truth junk; pure made up junk.

9/11 truth tells you the evidence was gone, but the real researchers were gathering the evidence and making changes! The real engineers and scientists are making a difference and they were out there right after 9/11 getting the facts; while the idiots of 9/11 truth were making up lies.