Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[~enigma~]

Also note that office fire temperatures are not sufficient in initiating a thermite reaction..

Really?!? A stoichiometric mixture of thermite can be ignited by a simple match.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

At this point I stopped reading and put you on ignore. There's no use in reading the arguments of people who apparently spend most of their "scientific investigation" whacked out on LSD.

Interestingly he was actually right... nice going... you put some people on ignore faster than the speed of light before you do any background research to verify them... I did the research for you....

Thermal color table for steel

Very Faint Yellow 215 oC 420 oF

Source # 2

Source #3 Which is linked to on this site

The 200 oC - 300 oC range is around the typical steel work temperature for forging, and working steel:

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4

 

[Dabljuh]

But deliberate ignorance of facts is no way to approach social or scientific inquiry, and you are deliberately ignoring the falsifications to the notion of incendiaries.

You are ignorant of the details of Jones' investigation. He's actually done tests with acetylene torches and with thermite. His analysis of not only the elemental composition but also the nanostructure of the objects (molten metal, microspheres in the dust) disproves your hypothesis. Acetylene torches cutting steel, and thermite reactions produce easily distinguishable compounds not only due to their differing elemental composition, but also their vastly different nanostructure. The microspheres from thermite reactions match those found almost perfectly, however.

instead, they showed distortion due to mechanical force.

I remember reading about a particular sample of corroded and thinned steel where the structural and chemical analysis suggested it was heated to over 1100°, with near certainty using an eutectic thermate product, and mechanical failure proceeded this.

On top of that, there were no sightings of incendiaries use on 9/11, not by witnesses outside the towers or escapees within. And there was never any opportunity to rig the towers or WTC 7 with any such devices.

In fact it is more probable that WTC7 actually served as a headquarters of sorts for the perpetrators (CIA, FBI, Secret Service and others being the tenants) having weeks of time to rig WTC7, as compared to days for the twin towers. The much cleaner, symmetric collapse of the building also indicates that WTC7 was prepped more carefully. Also a hint was that (according to 911myths and others) the WTC7's fire alarm system was put on 'test' before even the first plane crashed on the morning of 9/11.

Wrong. It does not. Jones's work fails to establish that any incendiary was used. The presence of particles have a genesis which can be attributed to mundane events like welding during the construction phase of the towers.

You are unaware or deny the quality of Jones' investigation. He is fully able to differentiate between thermate products and welding products, and fully falsified the notion that these microspheres would be welding products. However, he failed to falsify that they were thermate products.

That simply does not prove thermite or thermate use on that day, or any other day. When you add that to the fact that other observations on that day indicate temperatures inconsistent with Jones hypothesis, it is simply not possible to conclude that such particles were created that day at all.

What now, are you denying that they are thermate products, or are you denying that these thermate products were created on the day of 9/11? Jones' investigation doesn't leave much open with regards to *what* they're from. Furthermore, nasa infrared pictures and eyewitness reports, in addition to the already mentioned video allow one to assume at least *some* of the thermite products were created on 9/11.

The fact is, the particles in the dust identified by Jones simply does not indicate thermite or thermate use at all.

The fact is, all other sources for the dust can be ruled out, as their theoretical genesis were falsfied. Of course it's possible we magically find some new process that only happened in the 9/11 towers and that exactly produces the signature products of thermate - without the source being related to aluminoferric reactions. But what is it then, are you proposing alien heat rays again?

You do not understand basic principles of scientific theory yourself. For any argument that an incendiary was present and used on 9/11, evidence must exist that such incendiary was there and used. No such evidence exists.

No. That's not how the basic principles of scientific theory work today. This was the perception of scientific theory over a 100 years ago, positivism, but positivism has long grown out of fashion for a good reason. A more modern philosophy (to show you the difference) is fallibilism, the notion that not 'evidence for' but 'evidence against' describes the truth of a certain theory.

For example: Lets compare two alternative hypothesises.
A) There was no aluminothermic reaction on the WTC site on 9/11
A.1) Prediction: There will not be any products from aluminothermic reactions in the rubble.

B) The towers were rigged with thermate.
B.1) Prediction: There will be products from thermate reactions in the rubble.

Note that these two hypothesises are not simply their respective negations. I.e. falsifying one does not necessarily prove the other. I.e. We can't prove that the thermates brought the towers down or somesuch but we can argue that aluminothermic reactions occur.

Now we can test. According to positivism, we'd look for aluminothermic reaction products. If we find them, it's proof that the thermate reaction is the better theory. Now with fallibilism, we propose that the hypothesis of the absence of aluminothermic reactions is disproven with the observation of thermate products - However, the notion that the towers were brought down with thermate is not "proven", we simply failed to falsify it. We can add more predictions to a thermate hypothesis and try to falsify those.

To put it short: Unless we're able to falsify a theory, it's as good as any other theory that we're also unable to falsify.

Note that in fallibilism, a theory that cannot even in theory be falsified with any hypothetical evidence, for example "God exists" is not considered scientific.

So in fallibilism, we can rule out the proposition that no aluminothermic reactions happened in the WTC. In positivism, we'd argue that aluminothermic reactions did in fact occur.

Steven Jones's proposition that observed particles indicate such use fail in that the formation of such particles can be attributed to pre-9/11 events,

Like what? Surface temperatures exceeding 600°C visible from space, days after the collapse? Yellow-white-hot liquid metal flows in the minutes before the collapse? white hot liquid metals observed after the collapse? None of these can be satisfactorily explained with pre-9/11 events

and wouldn't need the presence of an unobserved foreign agent (thermite) to have been formed during that time.

Again, alternative explanations are still missing for the observations. The unscientific way is to ignore evidence that contradicts the model. If a model cannot explain the evidence, but another can, it's preferable to use the one that can.

exterior column bowing

... would be expected in a thermite scenario. As the core fails due to thermite charges being ignited, the exterior columns would apruptly have to carry the entire weight of the tower, something which exceeded their capacity even without a plane damaging a significant portion of the peripheral grid.

plus the time it took for the impact zone failures to occur. If, for example, Jones is correct about the use of thermite on steel, then more than the steel in the impact zone should show evidence of high temperature reactions, if not outright melting. It does not.

concrete melts at around 2500°C, that means you wouldn't expect significant amounts of molten concrete. The gypsum drywalls, the debunkers argue, can be pulverized by the collapse energy alone. Is there anything left that could show signs of high-temperature reactions when we're going to assume that the target of the thermite charges would have been the steel beams primarily?

Furthermore, the degree of column distortion is consistent with the temperatures NIST proposes, and so is the time before catastrophic failure.

That doesn't prove a thing, you know that? If you change unknown variables in a system until the model exhibits seemingly the same behaviour as the real example, that doesn't prove that the model is right. That's the weakness of positivism. Consequently, a similiar model that involves thermate and also shows the same collapse pattern would also not be "proof" of anything.

The temperatures associated with thermite use not only contradicts the observed amount of bowing, it does not track with any observed timeframe for failure.

Non sequitur.

But you ignore all that in pushing Jones's thermite theory).

Jones' thermite theory is falsifiable and thus scientific. It simply has not been falsified. The hypothesis that no thermate was used has been falsified to my satisfaction.

So go ahead and put me on ignore if you want. Ignore the fact that observations contradict the possibility of thermite. Ignore the fact that Jones's reliance on particles not linked to the events of 9/11 fails to prove any such conclusion. It doesn't matter whether you're convinced or not; this information is out there for people who genuinely want to learn the truth about 9/11. If you want to exclude yourself from that group, go right ahead; nobody here is going to care. You've demonstrated that you'd rather indulge in the fantasies anyway, so instead of engaging you, we'll just use you as an object lesson for the rest of the readers and lurkers here.

Oh noes! You're telling me we can't be friends no more? I'll be very sad then.

 

[Dabljuh]

Really?!? A stoichiometric mixture of thermite can be ignited by a simple match.

No, it cannot. Why do you run around claiming **** that anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge or even access to an anarchists' cookbook can *know* is wrong? Say hello to the ignore list.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, it cannot. Why do you run around claiming **** that anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge or even access to an anarchists' cookbook can *know* is wrong?

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Apart from magnesium ignition, some amateurs also choose to use sparklers to ignite the thermite mixture. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide enough time before the burning point reaches the sample. However, this can be a dangerous method, as the iron sparks, like the magnesium strips, burn at thousands of degrees and can ignite the thermite even though the sparkler itself is not in contact with it. This is especially dangerous with finely powdered thermite.

Similarly, finely-powdered thermite can be ignited by a regular flint spark lighter, as the sparks are burning metal (in this case, the highly-reactive rare-earth metals lanthanum and cerium). Therefore it is unsafe to strike a lighter close to thermite.

A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered iron(III) oxide and aluminium may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite#Ignition )

Say hello to the ignore list.

Hi.

 

[Dabljuh]

Interestingly he was actually right... nice going... you put some people on ignore faster than the speed of light before you do any background research to verify them... I did the research for you....

Thermal color table for steel

Very Faint Yellow 215 oC 420 oF

Source # 2

Source #3 Which is linked to on this site

... The phenomenon observed is clearly radiation and not reflection. There is no radiation in the visible range below some 500°C. Unless you're proposing this to be radioactive materials, or possible chemiluminescence (fireflies)

 

[~enigma~]

No, it cannot. Why do you run around claiming **** that anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge or even access to an anarchists' cookbook can *know* is wrong? Say hello to the ignore list.

Wow...one post proving something wrong and I get put on ignore. Is it supposed to hurt?

 

[Dabljuh]

Wow...one post proving something wrong and I get put on ignore. Is it supposed to hurt?

Alright. Granted. Sorry. A match's head contains sulfur and phosphorous and thus reaches temperatures sufficient to light thermite. But: Are you now suggesting that due to the impact, somehow a lot of atomized aluminium, atomized iron oxide, and a whole lot of match heads ended up in one corner of the building, and managed not to catch fire until minutes before the collapse?

 

[Dabljuh]

The 200 oC - 300 oC range is around the typical steel work temperature for forging, and working steel:

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3
Image 4

These are steel samples heated from some 600°C to guesstimated 1100°C. Forging does not occur at temperatures around 200°C. The emission of light does not occur around 200°C. Consequently, your pictures are purely disinformation for the scientifically illiterate. Anyone with a piece of steel and a source of fire can confirm you're BS'ing / trolling here. That's some grave intellectual dishonesty there, do you want to be ignored?

 

[~enigma~]

Alright. Granted. Sorry. A match's head contains sulfur and phosphorous and thus reaches temperatures sufficient to light thermite. But: Are you now suggesting that due to the impact, somehow a lot of atomized aluminium, atomized iron oxide, and a whole lot of match heads ended up in one corner of the building, and managed not to catch fire until minutes before the collapse?

That isn't what I said. I was adressing your point that the fires were not hot enought to ignite thermite. I told you (and Climwhatever showed you) that a stoichiometric amount of thermite can be lit by a simple match (in case your interested a match has an ignition temperature of approximately 235 C).

 

[1337m4n]

I wonder what Dabljuh is going to do once the entire forum is on his Ignore list?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Bring me an office fire that burns 1500-2000°C hot. Doesn't happen. That means the "fire heated it up" theory is completely improbable and thermite remains the most probable explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Unfortunately the perimeter moment frame of the tower would become unstable at 600C, which a normal office fire can produce.

 

[Dabljuh]

That isn't what I said. I was adressing your point that the fires were not hot enought to ignite thermite. I told you (and Climwhatever showed you) that a stoichiometric amount of thermite can be lit by a simple match (in case your interested a match has an ignition temperature of approximately 235 C).

The point is that thermite does not ignite in an office fire. An office fire is a hydrocarbon based fire and does not exceed (and usually far from reaching) temperatures of 1000°C. 1000°C do not suffice to light thermite. That a match head ignites at 235°C (didn't know, I usually just rub them against the thingy) and produces temperatures exceeding that to ignite thermite doesn't change much. It would only be the sulfur/phosphorous component of the match head that suffices to ignite the thermite. No amount of wood would, because the fire simply doesn't get hot enough. You get that?

 

[~enigma~]

I wonder what Dabljuh is going to do once the entire forum is on his Ignore list?

Play talk to himself.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Really?!? A stoichiometric mixture of thermite can be ignited by a simple match.

No, it cannot. Why do you run around claiming **** that anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge or even access to an anarchists' cookbook can *know* is wrong? Say hello to the ignore list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Similarly, finely-powdered thermite can be ignited by a regular flint spark lighter, as the sparks are burning metal (in this case, the highly-reactive rare-earth metals lanthanum and cerium). Therefore it is unsafe to strike a lighter close to thermite.
A stoichiometric mixture of finely powdered iron(III) oxide and aluminium may be ignited using ordinary red-tipped book matches by partially embedding one match head in the mixture, and igniting that match head with another match, preferably held with tongs in gloves to prevent flash burns.

Will you be unignoring ~enigma~ now and apologizing? Somehow I think not.

edited to add: Apparently you never ignored him in the first place


LLH

 

[Newtons Bit]

I wonder what Dabljuh is going to do once the entire forum is on his Ignore list?

Declare victory, obviously.

 

[Dabljuh]

Unfortunately the perimeter moment frame of the tower would become unstable at 600C, which a normal office fire can produce.

They lose about half their strenght around 600°C, which can be devastating for buildings without structural redundance. And even NIST has found no reason to believe that any part of the steel even got this hot (other than the collapse itself)

The thing is, structural steel at the core is 2 inches thick. That's a whole lot of steel. And also a whole lot of ability to dissipate - the ability to dissipate heat increases with the size of the cross section (Copper, Silver, Gold have better coefficients than steel but a small cross section of even gold will not dissipate heat as well as a large cross section of steel)

Reasons like that are why you usually consider buildings in the category of the WTC "fireproof", as in addition to this, they've also got automated sprinkler systems and fireproofing attached to their steel.

Of course that's all pointless if you simply bring it down with an abundance of pre-set thermite.

 

[~enigma~]

The point is that thermite does not ignite in an office fire. An office fire is a hydrocarbon based fire and does not exceed (and usually far from reaching) temperatures of 1000°C. 1000°C do not suffice to light thermite. That a match head ignites at 235°C (didn't know, I usually just rub them against the thingy) and produces temperatures exceeding that to ignite thermite doesn't change much. It would only be the sulfur/phosphorous component of the match head that suffices to ignite the thermite. No amount of wood would, because the fire simply doesn't get hot enough. You get that?

Yeah...the WTC was only wood.

Ok...time to put up or be branded a fool. What is the evidence that there was thermite at the WTC and why is that evidence of ONLY preplanted thermite and nothing else?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The point is that thermite does not ignite in an office fire. An office fire is a hydrocarbon based fire and does not exceed (and usually far from reaching) temperatures of 1000°C. 1000°C do not suffice to light thermite. That a match head ignites at 235°C (didn't know, I usually just rub them against the thingy) and produces temperatures exceeding that to ignite thermite doesn't change much. It would only be the sulfur/phosphorous component of the match head that suffices to ignite the thermite. No amount of wood would, because the fire simply doesn't get hot enough. You get that?

You are a scientific illiterate.

You have no concept of the principles of the chemical reaction known as combustion.

I really hate it when ignorant truthers claim that hydrocarbon fires can not exceed 1000C.

 

[1337m4n]

They lose about half their strenght around 600°C, which can be devastating for buildings without structural redundance. And even NIST has found no reason to believe that any part of the steel even got this hot (other than the collapse itself)

The thing is, structural steel at the core is 2 inches thick. That's a whole lot of steel. And also a whole lot of ability to dissipate - the ability to dissipate heat increases with the size of the cross section (Copper, Silver, Gold have better coefficients than steel but a small cross section of even gold will not dissipate heat as well as a large cross section of steel)

Reasons like that are why you usually consider buildings in the category of the WTC "fireproof", as in addition to this, they've also got automated sprinkler systems and fireproofing attached to their steel.

You seem to have forgotten that the Towers were severely damaged by the impact of gigantic flying objects at 400 mph. Oops, there's that Twoofer cherry-picking again.