Hilarious Steven Jones article

[Minadin]

<snip>

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf

We've all heard of kevin ryan i suppose. read that excellent analysis he gives.

Unbelievable. Kevin Ryan is a known fraud and liar who has been exposed many, many times on this very forum. I suspect that he's also an idiot, based on some of the things he has pulled (or attempted), but he's certainly a charlatan. That you conspiracy drones still hold him in such high regard is simply not fathomable to me at all.

Here's a simple cursory search of topics where his lying tendancies come up, including some information you could use to educate yourself about how "steel" is tested by companies such as UL:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3864671#post3864671

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=3819769&highlight=kevin+ryan#post3819769

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3632667#post3632667

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100423

Really there are too many to list them all:

JREF Forum on Kevin Ryan

Your hero is a fraud.

 

[papasmurf]

Thanks, Ron.

PapaSmurf - point 2 is the important one in understanding where you're going wrong, should you need that pointing out to you.

ETA: Your own video actually explains that very fact to you. 1,000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon of jet fuel. You understand that quite well; I'm sure. You wouldn't go putting 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue, would you?

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!

 

[WildCat]

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed!

You're still claiming the only thing that burned at the WTC was jet fuel?

 

[volatile]

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!

You're doing an engineering degree, right? You do understand that materials do not magically retain their full strength until the instant they melt, right?

This is why the difference between 1 gallon of fuel and 1,000 gallons of fuel is important. Time and intensity, as already pointed out to you, are the factors you're ignoring. Think about what would happen to your barbecue if you put 1,000 gallons of fuel in it and lit a match...

 

[papasmurf]

Unbelievable. Kevin Ryan is a known fraud and liar who has been exposed many, many times on this very forum. I suspect that he's also an idiot, based on some of the things he has pulled (or attempted), but he's certainly a charlatan. That you conspiracy drones still hold him in such high regard is simply not fathomable to me at all.

Here's a simple cursory search of topics where his lying tendancies come up, including some information you could use to educate yourself about how "steel" is tested by companies such as UL:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3864671#post3864671

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=3819769&highlight=kevin+ryan#post3819769

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3632667#post3632667

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100423

Really there are too many to list them all:

JREF Forum on Kevin Ryan

Your hero is a fraud.

Poltical attacks and criticisms are not what i am after. I'm not going to dig through all those loser posts to find the scientific information that i am after. I want to see what is wrong with what he wrote. I don't want to discuss kevin ryan, i want to discuss the paper he wrote. Thanks anyway.

 

[papasmurf]

You're doing an engineering degree, right? You do understand that materials do not magically retain their full strength until the instant they melt, right?

This is why the difference between 1 gallon of fuel and 1,000 gallons of fuel is important. Time and intensity, as already pointed out to you, are the factors you're ignoring. Think about what would happen to your barbecue if you put 1,000 gallons of fuel in it and lit a match...

The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.

This is really really simple science people, i don't know why we are still arguing about this. Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.

 

[JimBenArm]

Your barbeque analogy is absolutely horrible. I know 1000 gallons of jet fuel has more heat than 1 gallon!

That was my entire point!

The temperature is the same, the heat is different!

Hence why it doesn't matter how much jet fuel there was, if it doesn't burn over 1,000 degrees C, then those temperatures should not have existed! Nor should anything in a firecoded and fireproofed building burn at those ridiculously high temperatures. Nor does NIST say those temperatures were reached!

>bolding mine<
Really? Is there some magical property of a building being fire-coded that prevents burning items from going above a certain temperature? Do the temperature fairies intervene to prevent the chemical reactions from proceeding at their normal rates? Or is it just that you fail to understand combustion and thermodynamics?
I know where I'm placing my money...

 

[volatile]

The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.

You've had this explained already. Jeez.

"In the Cardington Tests above, several of the beams surpassed 1000 C in around 45 minutes. Just from wood.

Jet fuel contains 135,000 BTU's per gallon. That's about 20,000 per pound.
Wood containing no moisture contains around 8,600 BTU's per pound.

So you claim that it would 'take hours' to heat steel to 1000 C with jet fuel, when it takes less than 45 minutes using a fuel with less than half the energy content."

What makes you think that a) the WTC fires couldn't have reached 1000 degrees C? and b) that the intensity and duration of the WTC fires were not sufficient to damage steel such that collapse initiation occurred?

In short - what is your alternative hypothesis?

 

[AZCat]

The difference is relevant to the point i was making, which is that the temperature of the steel that reached 1000 degrees could only have reached that temperature if what was burning reached at least 1000 degrees, no matter how much of what was burning was there.

This is really really simple science people, i don't know why we are still arguing about this. Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.

We are arguing about it because you seem oblivious to the fact that the surroundings partially determine the flame and gas temperatures in the space, and that there is such a thing as time-dependency.

How much thermo/heat transfer did you have in school, exactly?

 

[Newtons Bit]

1000C heat is a red-herring. The building collapsed when one wall(ish) of columns reached 600C.

 

[Myriad]

I said given a certain set of conditions, the temperature of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel.

What you didn't say is that the temperature attained by the surroundings as a result of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel. Because that would be false, right?

Your frozen wood ignites at the same temperature as warm wood, but heats the room less, because some of the heat that would otherwise raise the temperature of the surroundings warms the remaining unburned fuel instead.

In real fires, especially structure fires, heat accumulates over time, raising the temperature. The amount and type of the fuel is one of many important factors in how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. The "reaction temperature" as you call it is in no way a limit on how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. When oxygen is limited, fuel that's not burning yet gets pre-heated by the heat released by fuel that's already burning, and its combustion temperature is therefore higher when it eventually does burn. There is no inherent limit to this process.

Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[AZCat]

<snip>
Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Is this an open or closed system? Do I have to worry about pump cavitation?

 

[volatile]

Well, that's a hell of a lot clearer than my BBQ analogy. Cheers for that, Myriad (not that I suspect it will do much good).

 

[beachnut]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I think we should all read it, then come on here and smear it and make fun of it.

It will be a jolly good time.

Here are some of my favorite parts:

1. He actually thinks the molten material flowing from the southeast corner of wtc2 could be molten iron from a thermite reaction rather than molten aluminum mixed with bubble gum!


2. He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

3. He thinks the destruction of the core collumns into hundreds of pieces is unaccounted for! Those fires were HUGE!

4. He thinks there is molten metal in the basements of all three buildings! NIST didn't find any!


What is the matter with this guy?

I want to tear this guy to shreds; he is truther trash. Somebody give me something to read that totally destroys this paper!


Thanks for showing me the light JREF!

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!

I am glad you finally let your engineering skills overcome your bias on 9/11 dumb ideas. Jones is the personification of 9/11 dumb ideas.

Yes that paper is junk, and an engineering student should be able to point out the failures of Jones. Jones made up his first cycle of thermite in 2005, 4 years after 9/11. He has to change his story when he found out thermite did not go boom and destroy stuff as he liked. I wonder why he stands by a story that would have massive amounts of evidence to figure out. So clearly is he debunked, only a special kind of truth movement follower find his work viable. Lucky for you, you are studying to be an Engineer, and would not fall for fraud only those as dumb neoNAZIs would fall for.

This is multiple floors smashed together due to a 100 TONS of TNT gravitation potential energy release Jones failed to understand so he makes up lies.

Jones is a liar and a fraud. He has no evidence and made up thermite because idiots who don't understand what thermite is, will follow him due to lack of knowledge and pure stupidity. That photo is a few floors with steel pans and light weight concrete smashed together.

How can Jones make up such lies? Who would believe such a stupid lie? If you had the ability, you would debunk Jones yourself, but you must be unable to marshal your good grade engineering efforts to combat pure ignorance on 9/11. What a waste of an engineering slot.

 

[ktesibios]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters

 

[Myriad]

Is this an open or closed system? Do I have to worry about pump cavitation?

Whichever you like, no (assume the pump avoids sweets and flosses regularly), and if you're asking these questions you're probably thinking of solutions way more sophisticated than what I have in mind.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[~enigma~]

Poltical attacks and criticisms are not what i am after. I'm not going to dig through all those loser posts to find the scientific information that i am after. I want to see what is wrong with what he wrote. I don't want to discuss kevin ryan, i want to discuss the paper he wrote. Thanks anyway.

Aquaman is an idiot. Whatever he wrote or says is being dismissed by me (as the court did) with extreme prejudice.

 

[~enigma~]

Please can we discuss more points in the paper of Steven Jones.

The only points Steven Jones has are covered by his rapidly thinning hair.

 

[Dave_46]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters

My bolding. Another thing to remember is that due to the thermal inertia of the temperature sensors the gas temperature will peak at a temperature above that recorded.

And, setting stuff on fire for sciemce is great fun. I was (peripherally) involved in at least one of the Cardington tests.

Dave

 

[~enigma~]

Hey little boy blue (papasmurf), this was a joint effort of Aquaman and Steven Jones. Watch and you might learn what idiots they are.