Hilarious Steven Jones article

[kimota]

Sorry that my post's phraseology set off your debunker reflex, Wildcat. Let me rephrase my original post.

Let's pretend Jones is plausible.
Let's pretend the cutter device exists.
If such imaginary device performs in the thermal manner described, would the load bearing column appear a) to be sliced in two or b) to be warped, melted, squashed and other manner of extreme physical distortion?

If your answer is b), then the photo is not evidence. Hence, the point and laugh at Jones' report as papasmurf requested.

Of course, if one can pretend that Jones is right, and pretend that "thermite cutter charges" exist, then I supposed that one can go ahead and pretend that it would make a relatively even slice with no other effect on the column. Just be aware that it's still pretending.

 

[papasmurf]

You just showed me an excellent peer reviewed article that is in the Environmentalist journal by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan as proof for your ridiculous assertion...

The article talks about energetic materials that are combusted at different points in time during the course of months after the collapse...

"The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as
a result of the rapid combustion of typical materials found
within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite
materials, buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow
ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, short-lived, and
possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have
quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The
combustible materials available, after a month or two of
smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to
be those that were less likely to have burned completely on
earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic
materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the
spikes in VOCs seen on those dates."

Show me where he talks about thermite reaction lasting for weeks...

 

[papasmurf]

Double post sorry.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong Dave, you obviously did not read to carefully. Jones clearly shows how a eutectic composition of iron and sulfur can significantly lower the melting point, even to 1000C if there is enough sulfur, which there was.

You're conflating hypothesis with observation. Jones hypothesises that a sufficiently high concentration of sulfur in a eutectic could have lowered the melting point to 1000ºC, as was observed in small areas in corroded steel from WTC7. However, as usual he stops short of attempting any actual calculations to determine how much sulfur would have been needed to produce the amount of liquid observed. As for your comment "which there was", that's not borne out by the evidence. Jones hypothesises the source of sulfur as being from a thermite formulation, which is simply an extension of his original thermite hypothesis.

There's no proof here, simply a house of cards where Jones proposes a series of ever more complex hypotheses to counter the faults in his original hypothesis. He isn't starting from the evidence and trying to explain it, he's starting from dogma and trying to force it to fit the evidence. He's revised this paper repeatedly to do so, a process he himself has, ironically, criticised in others (who weren't actually doing so) as "saving the hypothesis", and characterised as the opposite of the scientific method.

If you are just going to deny that there was molten iron at the site, i will ignore you.

There is no convincing evidence of molten iron anywhere on the WTC site on or after 9-11 other than the small amounts produced by cutting torches during the cleanup operations. There is limited video and eyewitness evidence that points to molten metal being present as would be expected from the temperatures involved, but there has never been any plausible evidence that any of this was molten iron or steel.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Show me where he talks about thermite reaction lasting for weeks...

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center
(WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero
(GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.​

•​

​

Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the
destruction of the WTC buildings.​

•​

​

Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the
debris pile.​

•​

​

Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy;
and​

•​

​

A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was
pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have
not been adequately explained as the results of a normal
structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely,
such fires are better explained given the presence of
chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel
and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical
suppressants.​

Done, bold emphasis mine. ​

 

[papasmurf]

Done, bold emphasis mine. [/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.

What is your background anyway? How can you make assertions without backing them up?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

You are only making the truth movement larger.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.

What is your background anyway? How can you make assertions without backing them up?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

You are only making the truth movement larger.

You don't get it do you? The whole problem is that Jones doesn't use any science in his arguments and doesn't back his own statements up with any science, thus they aren't proven.

It's like me telling you Santa Claus is real and then you asking everyone to show where I am scientifically wrong in my research.


And making the truth movement larger? What did you kids break the 100s barrier now?

 

[papasmurf]

You don't get it do you? The whole problem is that Jones doesn't use any science in his arguments and doesn't back his own statements up with any science, thus they aren't proven.

It's like me telling you Santa Claus is real and then you asking everyone to show where I am scientifically wrong in my research.


And making the truth movement larger? What did you kids break the 100s barrier now?

Doesn't use any science? I've read them and it is all science.

What qualifies you to say they are not science? Your name does suit you very well.

People like you are the reason the truth movement is growing, rather than falling like you people like to pretend is happening.

 

[WildCat]

Show me how that statement by Jones is wrong. I would love to see a scientific debunking of what jones is saying. It doesn't say thermite, he talks about a number of combustible materials that could have been present.

No, in his conclusion (which I already posted) he specifically claims thermite. What other self-oxidizing material do you think he had in mind? Do you now admit he claims it was burning for weeks?

What is your background anyway?

I know how to read with comprehension.

How can you make assertions without backing them up?

Such as?

Dave, anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

Why don't you prove we're all liars? Post your evidence of molten steel. You won't be able to of course, because it is you who is lying.

You are only making the truth movement larger.

Evidence?

 

[johnny karate]

anyone who tries to deny the presence of molten steel by whitewashing the evidence is a fraud and a liar.

If molten steel was present, and its presence indicates an inside job, how has this startling and rather obvious information failed to be discerned and/or revealed by every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet?

 

[beachnut]

Doesn't use any science? I've read them and it is all science.

What qualifies you to say they are not science? Your name does suit you very well.

People like you are the reason the truth movement is growing, rather than falling like you people like to pretend is happening.

Jones is the anti-science guy! He made up thermite and cherry picks the most obscure things about 9/11 and tries to make them a smoking gun for his delusion. He was fired for not using science.

You are the reason 9/11 truth is growing, ignorance on 9/11 and on the topics required to understand it.
Your lack of knowledge is why the truth movement gained one person.
You have that backwards, you are the reason the truth movement grew by one!

Your ability to ignore 110 acres of office contents to feed a fire in a pile of debris, is just one of your traits that makes you a truther. Your failed logic has you with the false information experts of 9/11 truth. Thermite, was made up by Jones 4 years after 9/11. Do you understand thermite would be the worse thing for trying to hide using it. Zero signs of thermite at the WTC.

 

[Minadin]

People, let me say this. It is not my belief that thermite was used that drives me and most people in the truth movement. It is the questions, unexplained phenomena, and holes in the official story that have not been answered yet in any reasonable way that drives us.

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, and I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's not any special knowledge any of them possess, but the lack of it, which drives the conspiratorial mind. Among competant professionals in the industries of building design, fire safety, demolition, first responders, and the like, there remains very little that could be described as "unexplained phenomena" as far as the mechanics of the disaster. I would imagine the same would go for experts in military issues or aviation as well.

Most people who aren't experts in one of these areas will base their opinion on what those experts are saying and consider that to be resonable. Perhaps conspiracy theorists differ specifically from your typical citizen in what they consider to be reason.

 

[papasmurf]

If molten steel was present, and its presence indicates an inside job, how has this startling and rather obvious information failed to be discerned and/or revealed by every single professional investigator and law enforcement official on the entire planet?

It wasn't investigated. There are a number of eyewitness accounts saying it was there by firefighters and other workers. It was there. End of story.

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

 

[Sparky]

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

There was a proper investigation. I'm satisfied with the results. End of story.

 

[papasmurf]

This is the problem with most conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, and I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's not any special knowledge any of them possess, but the lack of it, which drives the conspiratorial mind. Among competant professionals in the industries of building design, fire safety, demolition, first responders, and the like, there remains very little that could be described as "unexplained phenomena" as far as the mechanics of the disaster. I would imagine the same would go for experts in military issues or aviation as well.

Most people who aren't experts in one of these areas will base their opinion on what those experts are saying and consider that to be resonable. Perhaps conspiracy theorists differ specifically from your typical citizen in what they consider to be reason.

What's odd is that none of the experts will put their money where there mouth is. I have seen not seen anyone of these experts come out and try to explain the phenomena in a sincere manner. You tell us they all "agree". Agree on what?

The NIST report has been shown to be full of holes and unbacked theories. I want to hear it from the experts themselves.

Unfortunately there is a lack of these people coming out in support of the official theory. Where are these experts that you refer to? There is little testimony that accounts for what happened, and little attempt to debunk Steven Jones completely.

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

 

[johnny karate]

It wasn't investigated. There are a number of eyewitness accounts saying it was there by firefighters and other workers. It was there. End of story.

Why was it not investigated? That's the whole point of this movement. Something very fishy went down after 9/11 and a proper investigation failed to take place for the worst attack in our history.

And my point is that in almost seven years, it seems that only Truthers such as yourself are interested in this "molten steel" phenomenon.

Why aren't there investigative journalists in Europe or perhaps Interpol agents that share your curiosity and suspicion?

Why isn't there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet, in some kind of official capacity that can confirm your beliefs?

 

[johnny karate]

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

Tell that to these people.

 

[papasmurf]

There was a proper investigation. I'm satisfied with the results. End of story.

No...no there wasn't.

End of story.

 

[Sparky]

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

Because, as P.T. Barnum once said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

 

[Evilgiraffe]

What's odd is that none of the experts will put their money where there mouth is. I have seen not seen anyone of these experts come out and try to explain the phenomena in a sincere manner. You tell us they all "agree". Agree on what?

The NIST report has been shown to be full of holes and unbacked theories. I want to hear it from the experts themselves.

Unfortunately there is a lack of these people coming out in support of the official theory. Where are these experts that you refer to? There is little testimony that accounts for what happened, and little attempt to debunk Steven Jones completely.

If Jones was a fraud, he would have lost his following a long time ago. Instead he is continuing to write papers and gaining a following.

The lack of experts coming forward to defend the NIST explanation is explained quite simply. The research community (barring a few nutballs and agenda-driven liars) have looked at the theory, the evidence for it, and found it satisfactory.

There is nothing of importance left to explain and the serious researchers have moved on to more pressing matters.... Something the truth movement should have done years ago.