JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[beachnut]

I think you post this same speech (slightly modified to fit relevant issue) in every thread I post in.

You are a man of zero substance.

Post an example with links and I'll take you seriously.

Until then.....

NO, my post is true. Rational people are able to debunk many of the 9/11 truth papers with the references supplied by the idiot making up false information. It is self critiquing you are unable to do it yourself. You should not admit you can not do what most can. You will look like what Clinton called 9/11 truthers.

You are a man of zero facts or evidence to support a single idea on 9/11 truth! FACT Post a single fact to support a single idea of 9/11 truth and you would have a Pulitzer Prize. But you can't.

It does take some comprehension skills to catch the errors and false information these clowns of 9/11 truth publish. Jones paper is debunked by his own references. If you can't do the same as most rational people could do, it is you loss. I am sorry you do not have the abilities to use logic and reason to do such a simple task I have shown you in previous posts you missed and ignored.

Well, you may choose to believe what you like. But a hint, simple dichotomies don't always work in the real world.

And again, I'll state, I have no option but to accept the official hypothesis as the closest thing anyone has to truth simply because there is lack of evidence in favor of the alternative (at the moment).

I am highly skeptical of the current version of truth though.

And as such, I have every right to express my skepticism.

Anyway, I don't expect you to see beyond black and white: your previous posts demonstrate such.

And, yes, you can be quite funny, sometimes, thanks for the occasional laugh.

Your post to me kind of negates what you are trying to claim to TAM. Are you pure truth, or are you pure truther and you don't know it. Or you just like truther junk and do not like to research the real truth.

I said you can use the work of many truthers to debunk themselves. The references they use can lead to debunking their ideas. I think many people find that true, if they have worked at following the leads.

 

[Sizzler]

NO, my post is true. Rational people are able to debunk many of the 9/11 truth papers with the references supplied by the idiot making up false information. It is self critiquing you are unable to do it yourself. You should not admit you can not do what most can. You will look like what Clinton called 9/11 truthers.

You are a man of zero facts or evidence to support a single idea on 9/11 truth! FACT Post a single fact to support a single idea of 9/11 truth and you would have a Pulitzer Prize. But you can't.

It does take some comprehension skills to catch the errors and false information these clowns of 9/11 truth publish. Jones paper is debunked by his own references. If you can't do the same as most rational people could do, it is you loss. I am sorry you do not have the abilities to use logic and reason to do such a simple task I have shown you in previous posts you missed and ignored.

You've made a claim, now support it.

 

[beachnut]

You've made a claim, now support it.

Too late I have done it many times. Yet you fail to support a single idea of 9/11 truth with evidence.

Jones uses this ref - it does not support his bombs and thermite stand he made up 4 years after 9/11.

Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust.

Please do not jump on the normal fire stuff, the WTC fire was not normal; anyone can tell you why.

because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event

The expert Jones' uses, blames all the particles on the collapse and on fire in the WTC.

So RJ LEE states the WTC fires and collapse did it.

The fire did it. Not thermite, not bombs, but fire. Gee and expert like RJ Lee may of found things that go boom, or fizzle like Jones dumb made up ideas of woo; are you a woo master like Jones?

Self debunking, Jones and others.

 

[T.A.M.]

Well, you may choose to believe what you like. But a hint, simple dichotomies don't always work in the real world.

And again, I'll state, I have no option but to accept the official hypothesis as the closest thing anyone has to truth simply because there is lack of evidence in favor of the alternative (at the moment).

I am highly skeptical of the current version of truth though.

And as such, I have every right to express my skepticism.

Anyway, I don't expect you to see beyond black and white: your previous posts demonstrate such.

And, yes, you can be quite funny, sometimes, thanks for the occasional laugh.

You obviously have not read enough of my posts to understand. Ask any poster here, even reasonable ones on the other side of the argument, such as RedIbis, if I am, in general, a troll, or someone who ONLY sees things in black or white.

Some things are simple yes or no, while others, most things, have shades of grey.

TAM

 

[Sizzler]

Too late I have done it many times.

link me to the thread then.

 

[Sizzler]

You obviously have not read enough of my posts to understand. Ask any poster here, even reasonable ones on the other side of the argument, such as RedIbis, if I am, in general, a troll, or someone who ONLY sees things in black or white.

Some things are simple yes or no, while others, most things, have shades of grey.

TAM

You are right, I don't know you well enough. I'll reserve judgment for the moment and retract my statements.

Can you accept that I am not a truther, but more of shade of grey?

 

[R.Mackey]

You are right, I don't know you well enough. I'll reserve judgment for the moment and retract my statements.

Can you accept that I am not a truther, but more of shade of grey?

I would suggest that a good scientist would accept the leading theory for any given phenomenon, no matter how "wrong" that theory felt. Evidence trumps personal feelings.

What you seem to prefer is not a shade of grey, it's sophistry. It's the false equivocation of a theory that has some areas of uncertainty, but is otherwise well supported, with other theories that have nothing but uncertainty and no evidence at all, or with theories that aren't even clearly defined.

If you are informed, you have to pick a side. Few non-scientists grasp this, but it is true. There's nothing at all wrong with questioning the leading theory, as indeed I've written many pages on errors in the NIST report and variations on it that I believe to be more accurate (backed by circumstantial evidence, not just mere feelings). But that's not what you're doing.

 

[Sizzler]

I would suggest that a good scientist would accept the leading theory for any given phenomenon, no matter how "wrong" that theory felt. Evidence trumps personal feelings.

What you seem to prefer is not a shade of grey, it's sophistry. It's the false equivocation of a theory that has some areas of uncertainty, but is otherwise well supported, with other theories that have nothing but uncertainty and no evidence at all, or with theories that aren't even clearly defined.

If you are informed, you have to pick a side. Few non-scientists grasp this, but it is true. There's nothing at all wrong with questioning the leading theory, as indeed I've written many pages on errors in the NIST report and variations on it that I believe to be more accurate (backed by circumstantial evidence, not just mere feelings). But that's not what you're doing.

I agree with you. My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong, but I do accept it as truth at the moment, because most of the (direct) evidence points in that direction.

I'm waiting for the day for my gut feeling to be confirmed. And yes, that might take forever and ever.

Until then, I am here, asking questions.

Could you respond to the response I made to your post a few pages back?

My response is in red.

Thanks.

 

[T.A.M.]

You are right, I don't know you well enough. I'll reserve judgment for the moment and retract my statements.

Can you accept that I am not a truther, but more of shade of grey?

I will, for now reserve judgment on labeling you a "truther", consider it retracted, but I think you came hear under somewhat "misleading" pretenses, and that you appear to be a truther leaning agnostic.

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

there is an anomaly occurring here.

Yes, two freaking planes rammed into two buildings, that's the anomaly.

 

[Sizzler]

I will, for now reserve judgment on labeling you a "truther", consider it retracted, but I think you came hear under somewhat "misleading" pretenses, and that you appear to be a truther leaning agnostic.

TAM

Is that a semi-retraction???hehe. I'll take it. thanks.

 

[Sizzler]

Yes, two freaking planes rammed into two buildings, that's the anomaly.

Is it though? I thought the hijackings could be explained. No?

 

[Pardalis]

Is it though? I thought the hijackings could be explained. No?

You seem to be anomaly hunting, and when you find something that is inexplicable (at least for time present) you immediately jump to the conclusion of an inside job.

Jet planes have never rammed into buildings before, and especially not these two unique ones. So of course there are things unforeseen that have happened, and that puzzle us, and will for a long time.

As I said earlier, a good frame of reference is that there are two towers that fell, pretty much the same way because of pretty much the same traumatic damage. The first tower is the second tower's precedent, so we do have a frame of reference to base our expectations of how a building of this design and magnitude reacts to a jet airplane ramming into it at full speed. Now if you're not already biased and paranoid, and leave out the "inside job" scenario (which is unnecessary at this point, unless positive proof is found), therefore you must conclude that the way these towers fell is exactly the way they should have fallen.

 

[R.Mackey]

Sorry, I got distracted by metamars and his fixation on thermobaric weapons...

Check the dates. The one Jones sites is 2003.

The version of the report I have is dated April 2004, and says nothing about iron content. I don't know if that means mine is a more accurate, corrected update, or if they are two complementary reports. I just want to see the context of that statement, since it might explain why that figure is so unreasonably high.

Also remember that McGee et al. indicate < 2% average iron content in the dust, and that's all sources of iron, not 2% microspheres. The actual content of microspheres is appreciably less. How much less, I can't say. It appears to be present, but not at all abundant.

I am aware of this, but the likelihood of elemental sulfur being available during the pre-collapse fires is low considering SO2 needs to go through a reduction reaction. Also, the diesel fuel would have played into the matter during the rubble pile fires (not the office fires), long after the dust was distributed around NY.

Not so. Fuel also contains sulfuric acid, and that's about as available as sulfur gets. Also, much of the fuel in WTC 7 probably burned before collapse, though it remains a point of contention. And the thermal plume from the Pile fire could have distributed dust a long distance. Recall that the microspheres are in the sub-2.5 micron dust category, quite easily advected.

Sure, but would such degradation cause spheres?

I don't know the answer to this for sure, but it appears so. Surface melting is basically melting along exposed edges, with iron chemistry providing release of small quantities of iron at much lower temperatures than required to melt the regions themselves. The small quantities and free nature of burned off particles suggests spheroidization rather than jagged chunks falling loose. I'm only speculating, though, we need an expert to comment on this.

Well, I'm not suggesting such temperatures were reached over any appreciable area. That is my point. It is rather unlikely that the fire's radiant temperature was above 1100C.

I agree with qualifications. In local areas 1200^oC is reasonable in an office fire, and local chemistry (say a bank of UPS's or an oxygen generator from the aircraft) could push the temperature higher, but on average your radiant temperature is quite plausible.

I do wish Jones included iron content percentages for his dust samples in his paper.

There's really no excuse for him not to.

Unless it was emitted from the building along with the dust in such a manner that suface tension caused microspheres to form.

If we saw melting of large pieces of steel, there's no way for it all to have become microspheres. If that was the case, a steel mill would be a lethal inhalation hazard. No, if temperatures were that high, we'd see a whole new palette of thermal effects on materials. Not just "dustification" into microspheres.

 

[DavidJames]

Can you accept that I am not a truther, but more of shade of grey?

I agree with you. My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong......I am here, asking questions.

You want me to accept you're just asking questions, that your about "shades of grey". I understand asking questions and I truely understand shades of gray. However, I think this has gone beyond that. I wrote up the following to help you understand what I'm seeing and where I'm coming from.

Somewhere, you found a box which contained little slips of paper, each with a statement. The label on the box says, It all adds up to 11.

You come to JREF, pull a slip out of your box and say, 5+5, that equals 11, right?
JREF: No, 5 + 5 = 10;
Sizzler: Ok, that makes sense
Sizzler: (pulls out another slip of paper)) - 6 + 4, that equals 11 right, look at all this stuff that says 6 + 4 = 11.
JREF: No, 6 + 4 = 10, here is the evidence
Sizzler: Oh, hmm, I see.
Sizzler: (pulls out another slip of paper)) - 7 + 3, that equals 11 right, this journal says right here that 7 + 3 = 11.
JREF: No, 7 + 3 = 10, here is where the journal is wrong
Sizzler: Interesting, I'll take a look and get back with you
Sizzler: (pulls out another slip of paper)) - 8 + 3, that equals 11 right,
JREF: NO, 8 + 2 = 10

See where this is going.

Reasonable people have reasonable questions, but at some point when reasonable people are found to be wrong 100% of the time, reasonable people stop, step back and reevaluate how they are getting and assimilating information.

But you haven't been doing that, you keep pulling those damn slips from the box. Throw the damn box away, the slips of paper are wrong, every one has been shown to be wrong, many times you even agree. Get it through your head, the box is filled with bad information.

 

[beachnut]

I agree with you. My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong, but I do accept it as truth at the moment, because most of the (direct) evidence points in that direction.

I'm waiting for the day for my gut feeling to be confirmed. And yes, that might take forever and ever.

Until then, I am here, asking questions.

Could you respond to the response I made to your post a few pages back?

My response is in red.

Thanks.

My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong?

That is truther talk. Pure 9/11 truth. Did you mean to say...

My gut feeling is that the official hypothesis is wrong?

Ironic series of posts

I am not a truther (in a Nixonatonian way)

 

[bofors]

Sizzler: (pulls out another slip of paper)) - 8 + 3, that equals 11 right,
JREF: NO...

Stundie.

 

[BenBurch]

Stundie.

Like your every post?

 

[R.Mackey]

Poster beachnut was kind enough to point me to the source of the 5.8% microsphere claim. It's in the other RJLee report, found here, in Table 3 on page 24.

There's very little context to go on, just the entry of "Fe Sphere," so it's not clear if spheres were typical of the iron fraction, or spheres were all of it, or even just one option. There are no separate "non-sphere" iron entries, so I suspect the third option.

It's further worth pointing out that the testing protocol has more to do with environmental health than the state of the WTC as it collapsed:

A gash was created in the north side of the Building; the plaza in front of the Building was crushed which exposed the Level A and Level B Basement areas and the first floor; approximately 1,500 windows were broken; and the Building was exposed to the elements as well as being filled with a combination of soot, dust, dirt, debris, and contaminants.

Samples were collected from the Building beginning June 08, 2002 using “TP-01: Protocol for the Monitoring of Non-Biological Indoor Environmental Contaminants at 130 Liberty Street” dated May 10, 2002.

June 8th, that's when the sample was taken. And in close proximity to the WTC salvage site.

There's no reason to suspect the sample represents the dust created at collapse. All of that salvage welding and cutting could easily have wound up here.

I'd bet this is why the sample's iron content is so high compared to other studies. This report was never meant to represent the state of the WTC dust at collapse. Again, there appears to be no conflict.

This is why cites are important. People like Dr. Jones quote things out of context all the time.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There's no reason to suspect the sample represents the dust created at collapse. All of that salvage welding and cutting could easily have wound up here.

I'd bet this is why the sample's iron content is so high compared to other studies. This report was never meant to represent the state of the WTC dust at collapse. Again, there appears to be no conflict.

I have been trying to explain this to him, but he just ignores it.