Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
All right, dabljah, I have one question for you.
How was the thermite ignited?
How was the thermite ignited?
Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)
- Thread starter Dabljuh
- Start date
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
Stundie!
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Oh, and one other question,
Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?
Actually two questions, for a given combustion reaction which is a fixed quantity, the heat released or the temperature?
Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?
Actually two questions, for a given combustion reaction which is a fixed quantity, the heat released or the temperature?
Please point out where I mentioned Flint Spark Lighters and stop wasting my time. It's about enough now.
True, I'd estimate about 20 inches thickness. Maybe 30. But my eyes may deceive me there. Did you find an actual measurement of the thickness or do you just go 'NO WAI THATS TWO INCHAS' ?
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Only if you were dishonest and intentionally tried to fake the results or the inputs.
It's a non-linear transient state multidimensional conduction and convection problem. You're not going to find a wikipedia article saying how to do it. I've yet to see any calculations of this come out of the truth movement supporting this position. However, I fully look forward to seeing the fruits of your labor after you have been fed.
You're surprised that a plane which severed perimeter columns, core columns, completely destroyed stairwells so effectively that the people above couldn't get out and asphyxiated would somehow have problems severing electrical conduit and small water pipes? Please clarify your position.
These are trivial calculations. They are nothing compared to what you claim to be simple above.
You could, I suppose, if you were a truly dishonest person, completely ignore the plane impacts from having any affect on the columns and say that thermite severed the core columns. But you would also need very large kicker charges to knock the columns out of the way, which weren't heard.
In any event, it is entirely more plausible to saw that the combined affects of impact and fire led to the collapse, as it matches observed phenomena. To continue with a thermite hypothesis, you really need to show evidence of thermite.
The theory that the tower would collapse or would arrest once initiated was debunked a long time ago by a large number of people in various different ways.
Of course, claiming dishonesty on NIST's part is entirely different.
I've done enough to that end. Oh, hi and welcome to this thread by the way.
How about, you prove for a change that there was no thermite?
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for any truther to explain what power on earth could have stopped the upper block of 15 stories after the first 0.5 seconds. I know I will be waiting forever...
Why is that necessary? Moreso after you admitted that jones findings are not proof of thermite but it is only because of your inability to think of another scenario that you personally think thermite was used.
ETA - I am still awaiting your answer to my other post.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Huh... thought I was placed on ignore.
Good for him. When he actually gets around to doing a test with steel and a welding torch, then sees if he finds microspheres, maybe he will have actually replicated the welding done during construction. Until then, none of what he's done with his acetylene torch experiments matter.
Incorrect conclusion to draw from his work. The microspheres structure and characteristics do not eliminate other sources. For some odd reason, you fail to see this. I in fact need to jump forward to another one of your statements to address this:
He did not falsify that the spheres were created by welding. He said the following:
From cutting, yes, you'd expect spheres from torch cutting to be high in oxygen content. In oxyacetylene cutting, an additional oxygen stream is trained on the metal. However, in welding operations, you do not have this additional oxygen stream.1 Welding merely relies on the oxygen available in the atmosphere, whereas cutting adds a pure stream of such. Seeing particles which are oxygen-poor relative to spheres produced by oxyacetylene steel cutting is entirely consistent with the notion that the low-oxygen-content spherules were created by welding.
Furthermore, you need to analyze whether the "proof" that the "differing elemental composition" Jones provides really points at thermate, or simply contamination from other combustibles burning in the fires. The sulfur he tries to link to thermite has many, many mundane sources, and these aren't possible sources, we know they're there. Drywall and other structural elements that contain gypsum will of course have sulfur. So will non-LCD computer monitors, and recall, this was 2001; the majority of monitors back then were tubes, not flat panels. On top of that, sulfur is present in both gas and diesel engine emissions, as well as acid rain, and how many years were the towers exposed to that? Jones utterly fails to account for the overwhelming amount of natural sources for sulfur.
And of all the other components he cites - silicon, copper, potassium - which ones are supposed to be components of thermate, or the products of thermate combustion?
The problem is, you read Jones's paper uncritically, and merely accepted his findings without thinking about them. He eliminates welding as a source of microsphers by simple comparison to steel cutting spheres without accounting for the differing process that such would have undergone. And he cites the presence of other elements which either have mundane and far bigger origins, or which do not point at thermate as proof that there was thermate. How is that supposed to support his belief?
The bottom line is that he not only failed to falsify the notion that the particles were created by welding - at best, he falsified that they were created by steel cutting - but he also fails to demonstrate that the other elemental components detected had anything to do with thermate being present. You need to demonstrate what exactly about his work and his descriptions point at thermate and nothing else. The presence of sulfur is explained by the overwhelming number of alternate sources. The comparison to steel cutting microspheres is irrelevant given the difference between cutting and welding. And the other elements are not indicative of thermite combustion at all.
More to come...
1 "The main difference between the cutting torch and the welding torch is that the cutting torch has an additional tube for high-pressure cutting oxygen." (link). Also, "In Oxy-fuel cutting, a cutting torch is used to heat metal to kindling temperature. A stream of oxygen then trained on the metal combines with the metal which then flows out of the cut (kerf) as an oxide slag..." (Wikipedia link, which cites the original source: "The Oxy-Acetylene Handbook, Union Carbide Corp 1975")
Good for him. When he actually gets around to doing a test with steel and a welding torch, then sees if he finds microspheres, maybe he will have actually replicated the welding done during construction. Until then, none of what he's done with his acetylene torch experiments matter.
Incorrect conclusion to draw from his work. The microspheres structure and characteristics do not eliminate other sources. For some odd reason, you fail to see this. I in fact need to jump forward to another one of your statements to address this:
He did not falsify that the spheres were created by welding. He said the following:
From cutting, yes, you'd expect spheres from torch cutting to be high in oxygen content. In oxyacetylene cutting, an additional oxygen stream is trained on the metal. However, in welding operations, you do not have this additional oxygen stream.1 Welding merely relies on the oxygen available in the atmosphere, whereas cutting adds a pure stream of such. Seeing particles which are oxygen-poor relative to spheres produced by oxyacetylene steel cutting is entirely consistent with the notion that the low-oxygen-content spherules were created by welding.
Furthermore, you need to analyze whether the "proof" that the "differing elemental composition" Jones provides really points at thermate, or simply contamination from other combustibles burning in the fires. The sulfur he tries to link to thermite has many, many mundane sources, and these aren't possible sources, we know they're there. Drywall and other structural elements that contain gypsum will of course have sulfur. So will non-LCD computer monitors, and recall, this was 2001; the majority of monitors back then were tubes, not flat panels. On top of that, sulfur is present in both gas and diesel engine emissions, as well as acid rain, and how many years were the towers exposed to that? Jones utterly fails to account for the overwhelming amount of natural sources for sulfur.
And of all the other components he cites - silicon, copper, potassium - which ones are supposed to be components of thermate, or the products of thermate combustion?
The problem is, you read Jones's paper uncritically, and merely accepted his findings without thinking about them. He eliminates welding as a source of microsphers by simple comparison to steel cutting spheres without accounting for the differing process that such would have undergone. And he cites the presence of other elements which either have mundane and far bigger origins, or which do not point at thermate as proof that there was thermate. How is that supposed to support his belief?
The bottom line is that he not only failed to falsify the notion that the particles were created by welding - at best, he falsified that they were created by steel cutting - but he also fails to demonstrate that the other elemental components detected had anything to do with thermate being present. You need to demonstrate what exactly about his work and his descriptions point at thermate and nothing else. The presence of sulfur is explained by the overwhelming number of alternate sources. The comparison to steel cutting microspheres is irrelevant given the difference between cutting and welding. And the other elements are not indicative of thermite combustion at all.
More to come...
1 "The main difference between the cutting torch and the welding torch is that the cutting torch has an additional tube for high-pressure cutting oxygen." (link). Also, "In Oxy-fuel cutting, a cutting torch is used to heat metal to kindling temperature. A stream of oxygen then trained on the metal combines with the metal which then flows out of the cut (kerf) as an oxide slag..." (Wikipedia link, which cites the original source: "The Oxy-Acetylene Handbook, Union Carbide Corp 1975")
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
"Eutectic thermate"?? A eutectic reaction only requires the presence of sulfur. Whatever sufur is present in thermate is not sufficient to explain eutectic reactions, but the sulfur present in in the numerous and mundane sources I referred to in my earlier post can easily account for this reaction.
Eutectic reactions do not point at thermate being present, not with the sheer number of known alternate sources.
I fully doubt this.
People seem to forget that so much of the building was so dominated by one company that people prior to 9/11 actually referred to it as the "Salomon Building". To suggest that government agencies would have had free run to install incendiaries yet do so in a manner that keeps the majority of occupants from noticing breaks credulity. As I told another poster, Deus-ex-machina is not an explanation, and simply postulating that "the government" would have been able to install demolitions without people noticing fails. You cannot simply take as a given that they did it without leaving behind obvious signs of their work; you have to explain how that was accomplished.
To be continued later today...
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
The video you're talking about shows yellow-white material flowing from a window, cooling to orange-yellow while falling, and splashing while orange-yellow. It is therefore still liquid at orange-yellow heat, indicating a temperature range of 900-1100ºC. Since the melting points of iron and structural steel are 1536ºC and 1510ºC, the material cannot be either of these materials. Aluminium melts at 660ºC, and is not therefore necessarily excluded as a possible constituent.
Dave
ElMondo, look at the nanostructure of the samples that Jones has investigated. This sort of nanostructure cannot be created by welding, or random corrosion in a sulfur rich environment. That's completely out of the question. You still seem to believe that Jones' merely detected "sulfur and iron" together, but he actually analyzed the nanostructure of the samples, which showed that a mixture containing sulfur and manganese - not drywall, not computer screens - mixed with molten iron - not steel, and then cooled. These nanostructural differences allow for much more refined and more accurate statements regarding the genesis than a simple chromatographic analysis for the distribution of various elements or compounds within a sample.
Welding, cutting, anything involving torches can be ruled out, other processes do not cause this, the only known thing that can not be ruled out, but is in fact quite a perfect match for the observed samples, is a manganese and sulfur-rich aluminoferric thermate.
You can deny this and claim Jones is incompetent, fraudulent, malicious, whatever. Or you can work with the evidence. What's it gonna be?
Welding, cutting, anything involving torches can be ruled out, other processes do not cause this, the only known thing that can not be ruled out, but is in fact quite a perfect match for the observed samples, is a manganese and sulfur-rich aluminoferric thermate.
You can deny this and claim Jones is incompetent, fraudulent, malicious, whatever. Or you can work with the evidence. What's it gonna be?
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Please. Explain to us this "nanostructure". Explain the characteristics of the particles, and how those are supposed to eliminate alternate sources of generation.
Aluminium doesn't glow visibly even around the 1500°C range. The melting point for an iron-sulfur eutectic is just above 1000°C. Splashes of the orange material can be easily explained with soft, but essentially solid shells forming in free fall, while the center of the drop is still in liquid state.
It all matches up, baby.
Edit: A small correction to your data there, the melting temperature of structural steel is in the 1300s - You see, carbon and iron alone also form their own little eutectic mix.
Edit2: I'm not entirely sure on the reliability of the source here, but manganese/iron also form an eutectic with a melting point around 900°C at 12% manganese. Most steels contain manganese to make them more workable but rarely at such high percentages.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
These numbers are incorrect. Orange is more like 900-1000, yellow is 1000-1200, and white is 1200 and up. If your numbers were correct, that would make the observations made on 9-11 look more suspicious; but they aren't.
Dave
I'll let Prof. Jones do the talking about the nanostructure of his samples. From something that I already posted.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Sorry, since I can actually independently verify NIST's work, I'm going to assume that they're right unless proven otherwise. You've already admitted that you can't do the simple math to hand-check some of their basic conclusions, so I'm assuming you're relying on the opinion of other people who likewise can't do the simple math to hand-check some of their basic conclusions.
How do I prove something didn't exist? I can demand photos, and chemical spectra that doesn't have any alternatives. I've yet to see either. What other way is there?
If you want to prove that the entire government is lying, ASCE is lying, SEA (which I am a member of) is lying, AISC is lying, 99.99% of engineering professors are lying, you need to actually provide some concrete proof. Let's start with showing me some pictures of thermite cuts on columns.
Edit: Oh, and where are your calculations showing that the heat will be wicked away instantly? I'm with child waiting for them.
If you want to argue: You actually need 6000°K for a real white. Now go explain the discrepancy.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I'd like to see some evidence of that, since I've seen pictures of molten aluminium at those sort of temperatures glowing orange.
I didn't exclude the possibility of an iron-sulfur eutectic. However, it's fairly irrelevant, because that doesn't provide any evidence of temperatures sufficiently high to melt structural steel, which is what the thermite hypothesis requires. Your solid shell hypothesis doesn't make a lot of sense; you're suggesting that your soft shell is fragmented into small droplet-sized pieces by impact, which is nothing like the expected behaviour of soft metals.
Checked and found to be correct. This is still outside the possible melting point range of the material. Therefore, it can't be iron or structural steel.
Dave