POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

[Myriad]

I have a question for you; Greening writes,



What exactly does he mean?

Does this mean that the rubble temperatures would have only risen by 80 C higher than the office fires?

Or does he mean something else?

He means the average temperature of all the rubble would have risen by 80 C higher than the average temperature of all the material in the building at the time of the collapse. It's his estimate of the total amount of energy in all the combustible fuel, divided by his estimate of the total mass of the collapsed structures (with a factor called "heat capacity" figured in, the average amount of heat required to increase the temperarture of a kilogram of rubble by one degree).

The total masses and the fuel loads of the towers, I should mention, have both been highly in contention. GregoryUrich, for instance, disputes the commonly stated figure of 500,000,000 kilograms per tower, and has derived a much lower estimate. The applicability of studies of "typical" office loads to the towers is uncertain, especially from studies done in previous decades (and since the source is missing from the quote, and there's no source for the quote itself, I can't check up on that). One could make a case that the rubble piles also included the underground floors and not just the towers themselves, perhaps bringing the total mass of rubble back closer to the 500,000 ton per tower figure. But in that case, the fuel load for all that additional floor area should also be accounted for.

The real key here, however, is the word "average." The rubble did not heat evenly throughout, and some of the rubble was much hotter to begin with.

If I set fire to my house, it would raise the average temperature of the neighborhood by a few degrees at most.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks for the info CC.

I think the fuel is the most probable natural source.

Was the WTC7 diesel high in sulfur?

All of the diesel was high sulfur off road diesel.

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

 

[R.Mackey]

R. Mackey:

My point still stands;

No, it does not.

Thermate, again, generates temperatures too high to form that eutectic.

If you're assuming modest amounts of sulfur, then it could come from anywhere.

You have exactly as much evidence that the sulfur came from hard-boiled eggs that you do for thermate. In other words, effectively zero.

Until you figure this out, I'm afraid you've reached an impasse.

 

[beachnut]

Jones, thermite, made it up! Read his first paper!

So my original point stands. Thermate is a possible source of sulfur for sulfidation of steel.

No, it is dumb! Why? Look it up. BTW, Jones made up thermite! 4 years too late to help, he decided to blame others for the lone work of terrorist. Now you are fooled by Jones! Are you Jones? Or just gullible?

 

[BenBurch]

beachnut,

these goons just WANT to believe it so bad that they ignore truth.

-Ben

 

[Sizzler]

No, it does not.

Thermate, again, generates temperatures too high to form that eutectic.

If you're assuming modest amounts of sulfur, then it could come from anywhere.

You have exactly as much evidence that the sulfur came from hard-boiled eggs that you do for thermate. In other words, effectively zero.

Until you figure this out, I'm afraid you've reached an impasse.

Thermate in action would not form the eutectic, but the by-product, SO2, could.

Why would Greening add it to his paper as a possible source if it is not a possible source?

You are right though, possibilities are not evidence. That would also apply to gypsum and diesel.

Until lab tests are done. Thermate, and boiled eggs, remain possible sources.

 

[Sizzler]

He means the average temperature of all the rubble would have risen by 80 C higher than the average temperature of all the material in the building at the time of the collapse. It's his estimate of the total amount of energy in all the combustible fuel, divided by his estimate of the total mass of the collapsed structures (with a factor called "heat capacity" figured in, the average amount of heat required to increase the temperarture of a kilogram of rubble by one degree).

The total masses and the fuel loads of the towers, I should mention, have both been highly in contention. GregoryUrich, for instance, disputes the commonly stated figure of 500,000,000 kilograms per tower, and has derived a much lower estimate. The applicability of studies of "typical" office loads to the towers is uncertain, especially from studies done in previous decades (and since the source is missing from the quote, and there's no source for the quote itself, I can't check up on that). One could make a case that the rubble piles also included the underground floors and not just the towers themselves, perhaps bringing the total mass of rubble back closer to the 500,000 ton per tower figure. But in that case, the fuel load for all that additional floor area should also be accounted for.

The real key here, however, is the word "average." The rubble did not heat evenly throughout, and some of the rubble was much hotter to begin with.

If I set fire to my house, it would raise the average temperature of the neighborhood by a few degrees at most.

Respectfully,
Myriad

pre-thanks,

will comment on this when i get some time.

 

[Sizzler]

All of the diesel was high sulfur off road diesel.

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

thanks.

 

[Sizzler]

Seriously, Sizzler, exactly what position are you still holding? You back off of every "question" (position) when the answer is given to you, yet you continue to ask truther-inspired questions ad nauseam.

I have a word problem for you:

There are 10,000 pieces of evidence and 9,985 of them make perfect sense. The other 15 are curious, but do not contradict the 9,985.

Does this mean,

A) Weird, anomalous things occur around incredibly complex, chaotic events.

B) Teh eebil you ess guvermint and teh bu$co made da n9ne-eleben@@!!!111!!!11fnord!!!

Solve using Occam's Razor.

If they don't contradict the 9,985 then yes, I'd choose A.

If they did contradtict the 9,985 then no, I'd have to adjust or change my hypothesis....unless I was lazy or my original hypothesis suited some agenda (money, politics, ego, pride, etc)

 

[Corsair 115]

If they did contradtict the 9,985 then no, I'd have to adjust or change my hypothesis....unless I was lazy or my original hypothesis suited some agenda (money, politics, ego, pride, etc)

Or, consider the possibility what you are classifying as contradictory evidence may not, in fact, be contradictory. It may be your assessment of that contradictory evidence is in error, or that your standards of what constitutes contradictory are incomplete or inaccurate.

 

[Sizzler]

Mackey;

evidence of thermite in WTC7

http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

The device...
In recent years the use of thermite reactions as incendiary devices has gained popularity with arsonists because they are easily ignited with a match, burn quickly and can generate a very intense heat in excess of 4000F. These substances are a mixture of copper oxide powders and other chemicals which can be home made or purchased commercially as products used for welding large copper bus bars together.

The clue...
When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.

What do we find in the SLAG at the ends of beams and previously molten metal?

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

 

[Sizzler]

Or, consider the possibility what you are classifying as contradictory evidence may not, in fact, be contradictory. It may be your assessment of that contradictory evidence is in error, or that your standards of what constitutes contradictory are incomplete or inaccurate.

That is possible.

 

[Par]

Mackey; evidence of thermite in WTC7

http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

What do we find in the SLAG at the ends of beams and previously molten metal?

You seem to be committing the affirming the consequent fallacy. (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.)

• If a thermite reaction had taken place, then subsequent tests would reveal the presence of iron, aluminium, sulphur, manganese, fluorine, etc.
• Subsequent tests have revealed the presence of iron, aluminium, sulphur, manganese, fluorine, etc.
• Therefore, a thermite reaction has taken place.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

 

[Sizzler]

You seem to be committing the affirming the consequent fallacy. (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore, P.)

• If a thermite reaction had taken place, then subsequent tests would reveal the presence of iron, aluminium, sulphur, manganese, fluorine, etc.
• Subsequent tests have revealed the presence of iron, aluminium, sulphur, manganese, fluorine, etc.
• Therefore, a thermite reaction has taken place.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

well,

Direct evidence for CD should

1. Be unlikely under official hypothesis
2. Be likely under the CD hypothesis

The truth movement has shown evidence for 1.

The truth movement has not shown evidence for 2.

 

[Sizzler]

edit the above.

they have not shown evidence for 1.

but have shown evidence for 2.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Can you show us the unambiguous positive evidence that relates to a CD? Many Thanks.

 

[uk_dave]

but have shown evidence for 2.

Is that evidence any better than the evidence they have shown for sooper seekrit beam weapons vapourising the towers or the use of mini-nukes?

 

[Sizzler]

Is that evidence any better than the evidence they have shown for sooper seekrit beam weapons vapourising the towers or the use of mini-nukes?

Yes

 

[uk_dave]

Well good luck with the prosecution.

 

[Sizzler]

Can you show us the unambiguous positive evidence that relates to a CD? Many Thanks.

Considering the burdon of truth is on the truth movement, and they move really slow, I cannot.

However it is possible that over time a mathematical model will develop that cleary shows collapse needed to be assisted.

It is also possible that through lab experimentation, thermate residue, microspheres containing thermate residue, and actual unreacted thermite are considered unlikely under the official hypothesis.

If such science does not progress, the official hypothesis remains as close to truth as we may ever have.

Some of you believe such science will not develop, and that is fair. I however remain skeptical of the official hypothesis, and would not be surprised to see such science develop.

i really hope nist tackles the sulfur anomaly in their report.