DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[Par]

yes [the World Trade Center was just a building fire]: (a) there was a building and (b) it was on fire. ergo it was just a "building- fire"

Consider the following:

“Yes a BLT is just a tomato sandwich: (a) it is a sandwich and (b) it contains tomatoes. ergo it is just a tomato sandwich.”

...A BLT might be a sandwich and contain tomatoes, but that doesn’t mean it’s just a tomato sandwich...

a BLT is (a) BACON (b) lettuce (c) and tomotoe ergo it is not just a tomotoe sandwich. so you omit TWO INGREDIENTS.

Good. Now you’ve spotted the problem. Similarly, in the context of the World Trade Center: a) they were buildings b) they were on fire c) they collapsed and d) the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

So when you say that the World Trade Center was just a building fire, you also omit two ingredients. To reflect the matter accurately, it’s important to bear in mind that they also collapsed and that the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

 

[DGM]

This is an interesting line of argument but your going to have to elaborate a little further: which spherules exactly were already there? where exactly were these spherules located in the building? and what process produced these sphericules?

Any number of the spheres were there. (Jones won't release the tech data to narrow down the search). Iron rich spheres are common in the world. Did you read the thread by Crazychain saw and Dr. Greening? Here's the link, learn about iron micro spheres.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102021

It is an interesting line of argument because instead of denying that the spherules exist or that extreme temperature is required to produce these spherules, you are essentially arguing about the "when" these spherules were produced. basically what your saying is that they were produced long before the towers were even constructed. so i will be eager to hear what process produced these spherules and the temperatures involved

.

No one is denying they were there (It would be strange if they were not). Read the thread I posted.

But we do know that extreme temperatures were present at the wtc site otherwise steel could not have been evaporated. now assuming that you are not going to argue that the evaporated steel was already there you must accept that extreme temperatures sufficient to produce the spherules were also present since the temperature required to evaporate steel is greater than that required to produce spherules.

Wrong! We can make "swiss cheese" and "evaporate metal at room temp. It's call oxidation. You may have heard of it, rusting. All you have to do to speed it up is add a little heat, water and a weak sulfuric acid (from decomposing gypsum or the burning of organic compounds) and you end up with "evaporated" iron. All at temps under ~1000 c. . Read Dr Barnett's work.

 

[thewholesoul]

The Micro sphere question was answered HERE
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102021

bit of a mileading title.

a more accurate title would have been "possible sources of iron spehicules in wtc dust".

1- it did not rule out the possibility that jones is right
2- it did rule in other possible sources
3- it didnt mention the Mo and aluminosilicate spheicules
(can Mo sphericules for example form below the melting point of molybdenum?)

4- the main point for me however was that the extreme temperatures was not ruled out and the question of extreme high temperatures of course seriously undermines the official position

plus jones is coming out with his final card - the red chips!
does anyone know if the debate between green and jones was continued?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Good. Now you’ve spotted the problem. Similarly, in the context of the World Trade Center: a) they were buildings b) they were on fire c) they collapsed and d) the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

So when you say that the World Trade Center was just a building fire, you also omit two ingredients. To reflect the matter accurately, it’s important to bear in mind that they also collapsed and that the fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

this is crazy Par.

collapsing and the duration of the fire are not extra components.

the BLT has tomotoe, bacon and lettuce - it fell, and was on the ground for a long time. you see the latter "circumstances" i.e. falling and being on the ground for a long time do not alter the "content" of the sandwich.

similarly the building was on fire with the buildings content. the building fell and the fire continued with the same buildings content. finally the building continued to burn for a long time with the same buildings content.

this really is a non event, we are arguing about whether to call the wtc event "just a building fire" or something you have still to specify. what shoudl we call it Par?

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

bit of a mileading title.

a more accurate title would have been "possible sources of iron spehicules in wtc dust".

1- it did not rule out the possibility that jones is right
2- it did rule in other possible sources
3- it didnt mention the Mo and aluminosilicate spheicules
(can Mo sphericules for example form below the melting point of molybdenum?)

4- the main point for me however was that the extreme temperatures was not ruled out and the question of extreme high temperatures of course seriously undermines the official position

plus jones is coming out with his final card - the red chips!
does anyone know if the debate between green and jones was continued?

peace

I am still crashed as to how the thermite remained functional if it was amongst the original set that was used, in your interpretation of the collapse, to bring down the WTC 7 facility... Steven Jones and many others seem to ignore this detail... As far as I am able to see, without any precedence available prior to 9/11 to validate that claim, it becomes speculative as to how that thermite survived all three collapses...

The molten metal does not explain how your thermite charges survived the collapses, particularly considering that nothing remained of the buildings interior contents that was recognizable... I fail to see see where thermite would have the strength to survive all three kinds of collapses....

I don't get why the molten metal found weeks later is still being used as your evidence...

Not outright dismissing your claims for debate purposes (although I am highly skeptical of your evidence)... but it doesn't appear to me that the molten metal weeks after the fact is strong evidence in your support...

 

[Par]

bit of a mileading title. a more accurate title would have been "possible sources of iron spehicules in wtc dust".

1- it did not rule out the possibility that jones is right
...
4- the main point for me however was that the extreme temperatures was not ruled out...

These two characteristics are the same. In any event, “both” of them represent an attempt to shift the burden of proof: If you wish to claim that these extreme temperatures were present at the World Trade Center site, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence for the same. It is not our responsibility to prove their non-existence.

 

[Par]

collapsing and the duration of the fire are not extra components... the building was on fire with the buildings content. the building fell and the fire continued with the same buildings content. finally the building continued to burn for a long time with the same buildings content.

this really is a non event, we are arguing about whether to call the wtc event "just a building fire" or something...

Well, it’s not so much what we call it that’s important, but rather how we consider it. To point out, for instance, that a given observation is anomalous in the context of a building fire is merely to adduce a banality:

...what your really saying is that a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."...the first ever eutectic reactons observed in a building fire.

For this point to be in any way significant, you would need to point out why that observation is anomalous in a situation in which comparable buildings burned, those buildings collapsed and fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

I do not claim that the content of the building was altered by the collapse, but the way in which that content burned certainly was.

 

[Par]

falling and being on the ground for a long time do not alter the "content" of the sandwich.

Incidentally, the sandwich analogy referred to the event as a whole (the fillings being factors at play), rather than simply the building itself.

 

[DGM]

Par:
A eutectic reaction take place on steel (other metals too) whenever a sulfur (other elements also) containing fuel is burned in their presence. The fact that it occurred at the WTC was interesting and nothing more. Thewholesoul's argument using this "fact" is nothing more than a "red herring".

 

[Dave Rogers]

bit of a misleading title.

Followed by a bit of a misleading post.

1- it did not rule out the possibility that jones is right

Jones claims that the existence of microspheres proves that there were higher temperatures at the WTC than can be explained by the contents fires. The existence of other sources of microspheres invalidates this proof; therefore, it rules out the possibility that Jones's claim of proof is right.

4- the main point for me however was that the extreme temperatures was not ruled out and the question of extreme high temperatures of course seriously undermines the official position

This is a very carefully constructed attempt to mislead, in that it states that the question itself undermines the official position. Asking the question, "Were there higher temperatures at the WTC than can be explained by the contents fires?" does not, of course, undermine anything, as we have established that the answer "No" is consistent with the physical evidence. The fact that you claim that extreme high temperatures aren't ruled out is irrelevant; for your position to have any validity, you have to rule them in.

plus jones is coming out with his final card - the red chips!

Jones's "thermite chips" are the basis of one of the most vaguely articulated arguments the truth movement has yet come up with. So far, no evidence has been advanced to suggest that they are anything but paint chips with a thin film of rust on the back, as would be expected when paint gets knocked off structural steel.

And, as I said before, until you've produced your equivalent of what you're demanding from the rest of us - that is to say, a complete narrative of the processes and mechanisms leading to the high temperatures you claim to have existed in the rubble pile many weeks after the collapses, explained in terms of thermite and explosives and backed up by examples from other incidents - then you have no argument to answer.

Dave

 

[applecorped]

bit of a mileading title.

a more accurate title would have been "possible sources of iron spehicules in wtc dust".

1- it did not rule out the possibility that jones is right
2- it did rule in other possible sources
3- it didnt mention the Mo and aluminosilicate spheicules
(can Mo sphericules for example form below the melting point of molybdenum?)

4- the main point for me however was that the extreme temperatures was not ruled out and the question of extreme high temperatures of course seriously undermines the official position

plus jones is coming out with his final card - the red chips!
does anyone know if the debate between green and jones was continued?

peace

TWS - try this post and thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3765126#post3765126

 

[thewholesoul]

TWS, TWS, you're missing the point... The molten steel was found several weeks AFTER the collapse was it not?

How do you know it wasnt there immediately after the collapse? The only reason it was found weeks later was because the rubble was being removed and the underneath exposed.

What about the sphericules, were they produced before or after the debris pile?

On what grounds have you concluded that the eutectic reactions occured after the collapse in the debris pile when the FEMA metalurgical investigation team concluded that

“It is possible that this (eutectic reactions) is a result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure

You have been claiming that only thermite can do this

No i havent. I have argued that thermite can do this but i never ruled out other possible explanations for the obvious reason that if thermite turns out not to be the cause then something else has to be!

but then how does the thermite sustain the reaction for that long? How does the thermite retain its functionality and survive the collapse?

We covered this before and i answered it clearly in post 691

the thermite may well have all been consumed once the buildings were demolished

it was most likely used up but some may have remained in an unreacted form

most likely they didnt survive the collapse because they were used during the collapse to bring down the building.

I said this before, I am attacking the weakest part of your argument... for the thermite to be able to create the molten metal several weeks later it would have had to SURVIVE the collapse of all three towers without being pulverized or shattered in the process, and be able to remain functional.

So you keep saying. Until i learn more about the unignited red chips found in the wtc dust I have no problem conceding this point.
But how about giving a straight answer: if extreme temperatures are established prior to the collapse would you not concede that that would support the CD hypothesis over the natural collapse?

CD or no CD the towers were brought down intentionally. There was nothing UNintentional about it regardless of the culprit. They rammed planes into two of the tallest towers in the world, and brought them down.

Building 7?

I admit to where there are no inconsistencies in what you're asking. It's a stated fact that thermite produces molten metal. But the conditions required to produce it several weeks out don't support your claims.

Once again until i have a better rebuttal i must concede that the thermite could not have survived weeks after the collapse.

but allow me to ask the question again: how can you admit that thermite reactions produce molten iron yet you cannot admit that a CD with thermite cutter charges can produce molten iron?

You need to clear up how those thermite charges survived all that time...It's not just a matter of 'oh they were dormant'... it's a matter of whether they not only survived the collapse of all three buildings but as well as if they'd have even been functional at all. THAT is the single biggest contradiction in your theory.

I have cleared that up many times. i fail to recognize the contradiction. Thermite reactions produce molten iron; a CD using thermite cutter charges should also produce molten iron. The truth of this statement is not dependent on whether there was molten iron still present weeks later.

Precedents establish validity, without them the presence of thermite is rather speculative...

So by the same token when there is no precendent for a skyscraper totally collapsing from fire prior to 911 the claim that fire caused 1, 2 and 7 to totally collapse is invalid and speculative in your view?

Besides do you agree with the statement that historical precedence does not alter the fact that the melting point for iron is 1538 C, and thermite reactions can melt iron and evaporate steel?

We are not debating what thermite does to metal here, we know what it does to metal already.

I disgree. we have various anomoly i.e. molten metal (steel iron), sphericules, evaporated steel etc. The question is what caused or produced these anomolies and where the extreme temperatures to produce such anomoly came from. So of course what thermite does and the temperatures it can reach represent an intergral part of the debate.

Metal found in a molten state seven weeks after the collapse doesn't prove much of anything, particularly since the steel construction would have never had to melt in order for structural failure to come into play.

In your opinion because NIST never explained post initial collapse. It is speculation therefore that columns simply failed simultaneously without being cut by preplanted explosives.

The smoldering, or chemical reactions, in the end being oxidation had 8 months to curdle... that is the most unique part of this...

For me the cause of these very high and persistent temperatures is whats unique.

That killed your argument... flat out... if the thermite created the molten metal it would require that these charges are located within the debris pile. And it would require that we assume that these charges not only survived the collapse, not only remained functional, but also continually generated reactions for the extended period of time. All of which at this point is subject of speculation... You stated before to my questions regarding these conditions that you weren't certain...

What are you talking about. Just because i dont know what caused the molten metal weeks from the collapse does not mean that i killed my argument. My argument is: the official position cannot explain the extreme temepratures responsible for the molten steel and iron, the various sphericules, the evaporated steel samples etc. That is my argument. What is your response?

Assuming that thermite cannot explain the creation of molten metal weeks from the collapse that in no way alters or removes the fact that explosive chemical reactions and thermite reactions can produce extreme temperatures and could easily explain the presence of molten iron, various sphericules, evaporated steel etc!

There is plenty of evidence for extreme temperatures – and it is my contention that you cannot provide an explanation for these extreme temperatures. Thats my argument. It has almost nothing to do with molten metal weeks after collapse.

Was this not originally your basis for thermite in this thread?

No, this thread includes the many reasons why i believe building 7 was a CD. i did argue however that thermite could have been responsible for the molten metals found weeks later. But i find your argument stronger than mine - it is hard to beleive how the thermite could survive the collapse in sufficient quantaties to continue exothermic reactions weeks after the event. I have an open mind, my opinions are constantly under revision and i tend to believe the most convincing argument regardless of its origin. However my mind could flip back when i learn more about the unignited red chip revelations by jones.

This is one of the images commonly used to support the molten metal claim:Although if that were the immediate result of thermite, I'd expect to see less 'whitish' smoke, and a few more sparks... Doesn't thermite give off a yellow or brackish colored smoke?

Aluminium oxide along with molten iron is an end product of a thermite reaction. Aluminium oxide is consistent with the white smoke in the picture.
But there are plenty of information in the following links that convinced me at least of the presence of molten iron under the debris pile.

[websites: proof of molten steel/iron]
http://www.georgewashington.blogspot...tal-under.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...ltensteel.html
www.moltenmetalsmokinggun.blogspot.com
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

peace

 

[Norseman]

TWS - try this post and thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3765126#post3765126

And this post and thread, also by Crazy Chainsaw:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3737161#post3737161

 

[DGM]

Thewholesoul:
Posting this picture as proof of "pools of molten metal" is moronic. The fire fighters face would be on fire from the radiant heat. You know this. Don't be stupid.

 

[Norseman]

This brings us back to the "when" question. was the steel evaporated after the collapse in the rubble? or was it evaporated before and during the building collapse?
According to Dr Barnett and co it is possible that this phenomenon began prior to aswell as after the collapse http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

It is to be noted that NIST did their own analysis on the column of sample #2 in the report linked by thewholesoul above in:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components

See chapter "Single Column K-16" on page 229 to page 233) (PDF page 279 -
283)

NIST concluded:

Finally, as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53rd floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon had no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building (Finding #7).

My bolding.

Regarding sample #1 we will have to wait for the WTC 7 report.

(The original FEMA PDF of the report thewholesoul linked can be found here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How do you know it wasnt there immediately after the collapse? The only reason it was found weeks later was because the rubble was being removed and the underneath exposed.

We don't know if it was there at the time of the collapse in the context of the post-collapse conditions, which is why I am not speculating as whether it was or was not. I am saying, that because they found it weeks later produces unreliable evidence in favor of thermite due to the conditions established before.

What about the sphericules, were they produced before or after the debris pile?

... I'd be speculating if I told you I was familiar with this part of the argument

But how about giving a straight answer: if extreme temperatures are established prior to the collapse would you not concede that that would support the CD hypothesis over the natural collapse?

If it overwhelms the evidence with other factors that make the collapse due to debris damage and fire neglectible... Alone however, 'extreme' temperatures don't establish it...

Building 7?

no... the towers... but on the subject of WTC7...

Once again until i have a better rebuttal i must concede that the thermite could not have survived weeks after the collapse.

This is the part of the argument I have been trying to address the last few days... so the next part to tackle will be pre-collapse.

but allow me to ask the question again: how can you admit that thermite reactions produce molten iron yet you cannot admit that a CD with thermite cutter charges can produce molten iron?

I based my claims because the original context we have debated up to now. The idea of whether or not the molten metal found weeks later established thermite, and the main condition of this at the root of things would have involved the thermite surviving the collapse assuming it were present inside the towers. At this time we have agreed that the molten metal doesn't prove it since we can't establish that the thermite survived, or that the molten metal was present at the time of the collapse.

So by the same token when there is no precendent for a skyscraper totally collapsing from fire prior to 911 the claim that fire caused 1, 2 and 7 to totally collapse is invalid and speculative in your view?

We do know what fire can do structural steel though.

No there is no precedent really, particularly given the size of all three buildings. But at the same token many examples I've been shown of much worse fires in other steel frame structures lack the following:

• The main one is that none of the examples I've seen suffered impact damage from either airliners OR debris damage from a near by collapse. It is the single most important factor in the equation.
  
• None of the fires in the WTC complex were fought, in WTC 1 & 2 they were literally 80 stories up... and WTC 7 there was simply no efforts made at all. The other examples were fought until they were out.
  
• Few if any of the examples I've seen had a similar construction to the world trade centers. The twin towers had tube on tube design. WTC 7 had a core structure and from floor 7 and lower it was supported by three main vertical trusses, with the supports above it being cantilevered.
  Most of the examples used a steel web design which was more traditional to steel construction.

Those are just a few of the problems, out of many.... we never had any real scenario like this before... Using examples that never had the same circumstance as the WTC centers seems to be the more speculative argument.

In your opinion because NIST never explained post initial collapse. It is speculation therefore that columns simply failed simultaneously without being cut by preplanted explosives.

Bolded:
Again, we do know what fire can do structural steel though.

It's not really an opinion at all.... because I have to know this material getting into the architecture field. Steel can give way if the fire proofing is removed or the structural system is already weakened. We saw many many hints of this happening in the twin towers with the perimeter columns sagging inward well before the collapse, here's a picture of one of the towers immediately prior to the collapse:

And it's not exactly like it was relegated to the columns... NIST refers to several incidents showing the floor slabs sagging...

As for WTC 7... the structural damage isn't even clearly visible because of all the smoke:

What are you talking about. Just because i dont know what caused the molten metal weeks from the collapse does not mean that i killed my argument.

I was referring to your "I don't know and I don't care" comment. That kills credibility in a debate. You should know it as well as anybody...

My argument is: the official position cannot explain the extreme temepratures responsible for the molten steel and iron, the various sphericules, the evaporated steel samples etc. That is my argument. What is your response?

I've already made my response, that in the context of molten steel found weeks later we are unable to establish thermite. We have not debated each other extensively on things before the collapse...

Assuming that thermite cannot explain the creation of molten metal weeks from the collapse that in no way alters or removes the fact that explosive chemical reactions and thermite reactions can produce extreme temperatures and could easily explain the presence of molten iron, various sphericules, evaporated steel etc!

Again I am not debating what thermite leaves behind, I am debating as to whether or not, given the conditions if it is responsible for the molten metal that was found.

However my mind could flip back when i learn more about the unignited red chip revelations by jones.

Will take that as we go I guess :/ ...

 

[Par]

So by the same token when there is no precendent for a skyscraper totally collapsing from fire prior to 911 the claim that fire caused 1, 2 and 7 to totally collapse is invalid and speculative in your view?

It’s important to bear in mind that World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse due to fire alone. They also suffered high-speed impacts from commercial airliners; World Trade Center 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of World Trade Center 1.

 

[thewholesoul]

Maybe if you would re-read everything I wrote, you would understand that my numbers cant and never will be 100% accurate, BECAUSE I DONT KNOW WHAT FUELS WERE AVAILABLE NOR DO I KNOW WHAT TEMPERATURE THESE FUELS MAKE OUT AT....your excepting fact from little evidence.


Fuels we do know....

Plastic, Carpets, Paper, Chemicals (White out, Ink, Cleaning solvents)
Clothing, Human Remains, Drywall, Mops, Brooms, Buckets, Wood

sounds like typical office material to me

Prove it was Steel, prove it was melted

go read FEMA's metalurgical examination appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

You know whats funny, is all of the leading Fire Investigators and lead research teams of this world don't disagree with the conclusion. Maybe you should ask them why they don't disagree. Why is that? Why is it only pseudo scientists disagree when you have the NFPA, who has done modeling way before 9/11.

did you read their conclusion?

“The severe corrosion and subsequent errosion of Samples 1 ad 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrossion is unknown. It is possible that this is a result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to the collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure"

their conclusion does not rule out eutectic reactions before the rubble pile and you know what that means i would hope?

Did you even read the paper I posted about Smoldering fires?

i did. there is no mention of how a smoldering fire produces molten metal, sphericules, or evaporates steel. the only mention of temperature was in degrees Kelvin and the hottest smoldering fire did not exceed 900 C. so i am at a loss as to why you send me the article in the first place?

YOU STILL NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT STEEL AND IRON WERE MELTED.

come on man i thought we were passed this stage of denial

Well, excuse me for the strawman, I usually am better with my arguments. Yes but the convection and building of superheated gases that cant escape due to the thousands of tons of concrete buried on top of it will cause the temperature to raise, it creates an oven like condition.

no worries i make mistakes too.

why dont you go to the smoldering article and quote me the highest temperature. you will find it does not exceed 1050 Kelvin.

moreover the tempoerature produced by a smoldering fire is highly dependent on the conduction or passage of oxygen i.e. more oxygen the hotter the reaction zone. however the debris pile at wtc was oxygen starved so what is your response to that?


moreover teh smoldering artucle states: smoldering is a slow, low temperature, flameless form of combustion
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire02/PDF/f02074.pdf

now how does an eight ton steel I-beam six inches thick bend into a near perfect horseshoe without almost a single crack in it? this cannt be explained be a smoldering low temperature fire because it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

so (a) when was the steel beam bent, and (b) where did the temperatures come from?

peace

 

[Grizzly Bear]

why dont you go to the smoldering article and quote me the highest temperature. you will find it does not exceed 1050 Kelvin.

now how does an eight ton steel I-beam six inches thick bend into a near perfect horseshoe without almost a single crack in it? this cannt be explained be a smoldering low temperature fire because it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

1050 kelvin... subtract 273.15 to convert to celsius, then multiply by 1.8 (9/5), and it converts to 1,398.33 (F)
Steel loses 50%% of its strength at around 1100 degrees (F)

For the record,
1,398.33 degrees (F), IS more than enough to cause steel to soften, not melt, but it could deform if it were bearing a load, even under its own weight. The phenomenon is associated with creep...

Which way was it bent anyway? On the weak axis or the strong axis?

 

[DGM]

I see thewholesoul is posting articles with the "angle cut" picture as proof. It can't get more pathetic than that.