Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[mrbaracuda]

So you believe another "Truth Movement" lie. Please explain the black smoke here.
[qimg]http://www.ipb.org/images/Oil%20Fire%20in%20Iraq[/qimg]

Any idea what those tubes are? Javelin? Tubes of that modern, reloadable bazooka? Flamethrower canisters?

 

[The Big Dog]

sdemetri

"They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment."

I suggested that you think and research before you post, and yet again you repeat a stupid Twoofer lie that has been exposed repeatedly.

Wow, just wow. Two points: 1. it is absolutely false; 2. why in the name of god would anyone claim that the fires burning in the towers BEFORE the COLLAPSE were not in an oxygen rich environment? I seem to recall that there is "air" in New York and "air" has oxygen in it, and the Towers were in the "air" weren't they?

 

[sdemetri]

Talk about precision and accuracy!

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

 

[Dave_46]

<snip>
The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.
<snip?

This is at least the third fourth time I have posted this.

I just wanted to pick up on the smoke colour.

I happened to be reading a guide to the United Kingdom Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)

Order yesterday (don't ask!) The one I was reading was for producing a Fire Risk

Assessment for Small And Medium Places Of Assembly.

Link http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/426/SmallandMediumPlacesofAssemblyfullguide_id1500426.p df

At the bottom of page 16 (document page) is this paragraph.

Smoke produced by a fire also contains
toxic gases which are harmful to
people. A fire in a building with modern
fittings and materials generates smoke
that is thick and black, obscures vision,
causes great difficulty in breathing and
can block the escape routes.

This fits with my experience, and it has been mentioned by other posters here, the smoke

colour is mainly influenced by what is burning, and is not indicative of oxygen

starvation.

Dave

Edited to change Entertainment to Assembly in the document name

 

[lapman]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

Are you forgetting the 767 sized hole that would let plenty of oxygen in? Nice dodge though. The picture is an oil fire. The fact remains is that smoke color is no indication of the amount of oxygen available to a fire. If the windows were so tightly sealed, what did all those people jump from?

 

[The Big Dog]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

NOW he claims that black smoke is caused by a "uncontrolled burn"! The goal posts, they were right here a minute ago?

But wait "its controlled environment and windows that would not open." Perhaps you heard that two planes hit the towers and thousands of windows were broken?

WOW! Sdemtri, are you a No-Planer too?

 

[johnny karate]

sdemetri, I'm confused.

Black smoke = Oxygen-starved environment

or

Black Smoke = Uncontrolled burn

Which is it?

 

[Arus808]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn.

false. the smoke and fire comes from carbon based items being burned. nothing do with uncontrolled or controlled burns.

In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved.

You are now lying. Or you forget the two large planes that made pretty sizable HOLES in those buildings to let all the OXYGEN in.

and the buildings are 90% air, or else, how does anyone breathe in them?


BLACK SMOKE is the result of CARBON based items burning. NOTHING MORE.

If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you.

sorry, but we have firefighters who have weighed in on this, including firefighters who are posters here. THIS IS FACt. BLACK smoke - indicates carbon rich items being burned. NOTHING MORE.

Herd mentality doesn't prove anything.

This has nothing to do with herd mentality (and the only people exhibiting such mentality are truthers).

In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

shows that you know nothing about fires.

 

[Kent1]

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do.

NIST did not deny molten metals.
Here is what NIST said

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Here is what Cahill said:
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=65238
Nevertheless, despite being angry about his own experiences with the government, Cahill is inclined to support the government’s official 9/11 story, if only because it provides the simplest explanation.

“I live by Occam’s razor,” he said. “The simplest explanation is the best. I have been in contact with the people with the thermite theories, and I’m not convinced. The idea that the building was brought down by thermite … there was plenty of energy in the building to bring it down. If you do an inventory of the building, there’s an incredible amount of combustible material. The plane comes in, lets in large amounts of oxygen, and you get intense heat. At 600 C to 1,000 C, the steel starts to bend.

“The buildings were extremely vulnerable to fire,” he continued. “The information to me seems to be very clear: A lot of energy and very poor design were responsible for the collapse.”

Cahill arrived at Ground Zero weeks after the reports of molten metal at the scene, but his extensive research on why the rubble piles smoldered so long was of interest to controlled-demolition theorists, who believed molten steel in the bottom of the piles provided the heat source. Such was not the case, Cahill said. Instead, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks.

 

[WildCat]

In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved.

There was a controlled environment after a freaking 767 hit it at over 400 mph and blasted a 3 story hole in one side and blew out every damned window on the other side?! Really?

Anyone who has seen the videos of the burning towers and says the fires were small and isolated is a liar.

The only benefit of the doubt I will offer goes to the severely mentally handicapped, of which our new Steven Jones fanboy doesn't appear to be.

OK, I'm seriously leaning towards giving sdemetri the benefit of the doubt now.

 

[BenBurch]

Red Ibis.

You SERIOUSLY wonder why the WTC towers have not been rebuilt???

Welcome to the world of Politics and Bureaucracy, my beaked buddy. It might be a hundred years before anybody can decide what to do about this hole in the ground.

 

[Arus808]

and remember, this is a private entity that is rebuilding (with some help from the govt).

There's a govt building in Hawaii that has been "under construction" for the better part of 20 years. I was 13 when they started razing the area to build this building. to this day, only the exterior structure of the building, and the first 3 floors (out of 5) has been built. I return to Hawaii to see if any progress has been made, and its i the SAME Condition as it was, when I left 5 years ago (with newly added graffiti and painted over graffiti in certain sections).

Its an eyesore; yet the govt can build three community centers, a new golf course, three new schools and a whole new suburb, in the 20 years that this vacant skeleton of a building, has been standing.

 

[WildCat]

It might be a hundred years before anybody can decide what to do about this hole in the ground.

Not 100 years, but maybe as long as Block 37.

 

[Stellafane]

OK, I'm seriously leaning towards giving sdemetri the benefit of the doubt now.

This has to be the most backhanded "compliment" of the year.

(Well done!)

 

[sdemetri]

NIST did not deny molten metals.
Here is what NIST said


Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Here is what Cahill said:

Nevertheless, despite being angry about his own experiences with the government, Cahill is inclined to support the government’s official 9/11 story, if only because it provides the simplest explanation.

“I live by Occam’s razor,” he said. “The simplest explanation is the best. I have been in contact with the people with the thermite theories, and I’m not convinced. The idea that the building was brought down by thermite … there was plenty of energy in the building to bring it down. If you do an inventory of the building, there’s an incredible amount of combustible material. The plane comes in, lets in large amounts of oxygen, and you get intense heat. At 600 C to 1,000 C, the steel starts to bend.

“The buildings were extremely vulnerable to fire,” he continued. “The information to me seems to be very clear: A lot of energy and very poor design were responsible for the collapse.”

Cahill arrived at Ground Zero weeks after the reports of molten metal at the scene, but his extensive research on why the rubble piles smoldered so long was of interest to controlled-demolition theorists, who believed molten steel in the bottom of the piles provided the heat source. Such was not the case, Cahill said. Instead, fuel oil from the WTC’s generators seeped into the ground, ignited and slowly consumed the debris stacked on top of it. As the piles were peeled open, oxygen stoked the underground fire, which burned for weeks.

John Gross did deny it in the Austin Q&A session. Yes, the FAQ's that came out have this statement, but it is written off as unimportant, as are many other inconsistencies in their analysis.

Cahill is certainly entitled to his opinion about fuel oil. It does not change what many, many other eyewitnesses with the expertise and credibility to know have to say about the persistance of molten metal in the pile. And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

 

[beachnut]

Unfortunately, controlled demolition is equally justifiable to gravity driven collapse and theories other than the conventional ones should be explored.

This is where you ignorance of gravity and physics come shining thorough. With zero sounds of explosives, zero detonations, zero evidence, you come up with zero on the side of explosives, and have decided to remain in ignorance of the actual collapse mechanism. You have picked fantasy. What is new? A new person comes and spews Jones fantasy ideas and you prove again you have no real understanding of physics, and gravity to help you. At least you support the new guy who is also a fantasy fan.
I listed all your evidence to date supporting CD.
1.

That was short, and it matches 9/11 truth's. zero

 

[SDC]

Sdemetri, do you believe that large commercial jets struck WTC 1&2 on the morning of 11 Sept 2001? Let's start with that question.

 

[Kent1]

John Gross did deny it in the Austin Q&A session. Yes, the FAQ's that came out have this statement, but it is written off as unimportant, as are many other inconsistencies in their analysis.

Cahill is certainly entitled to his opinion about fuel oil. It does not change what many, many other eyewitnesses with the expertise and credibility to know have to say about the persistance of molten metal in the pile. And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

He was asked about motlen steel. Huge pools.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/465090/nist_lead_engineer_questioned_about_9_11_denies_molten_metal/

I haven't seen any pictures of these either. Reports of molten steel however, are not uncommon in house fires. 90% of the burned houses in the Oakland hills fire had reports of Molten steel.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf


I don't know of anyone else with the expertise and credibility that says otherwise. Certainly Jones and Ryan do not fall into that area.

 

[HyJinX]

And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

Well of course it doesn't. Because if it did, you wouldn't be able to continue being a pawn on the chessboard of idiocy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And poor design is trotted out as a reason for the rapid destruction, but that doesn't hold water with me.

I'm not certain that it's an adequate explanation either, but it's not just some excuse-of-the-minute. It's held by more people than Cahill. Astaneh-Asl, for example, says the same thing:

As Mr. Astaneh-Asl examined the construction documents, however, he was horrified by aspects of the design. He says the structure essentially threw out the rule book on skyscraper construction. "This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced," he says.

The design contains at least 10 unusual elements, he says. For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other, says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design, he says, adding that in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick. And he says the designers used stronger steel (measured in what is known as "yield strength") in some columns than is allowed by any U.S. building codes, and that such steel is less flexible — and therefore more brittle — than the type traditionally used in such buildings.

As a result of such design elements, he argues, when the two airliners smashed into the upper floors of the towers, both planes plunged all the way in, wings and all. Airliners carry much of their fuel in their wings. His model clearly shows that in the initial fight between the plane and the building's exterior, the plane won, easily breaching the structure.

"It's like a soda can hit with a pencil," says Mr. Astaneh-Asl. "It was so easy that the plane went in without any damage and took the thousands of gallons of jet fuel in."...

... "Unfortunately and tragically, when [this design] was subjected to this terrorist attack, there's no way this building could stand it."...

... Mr. Astaneh-Asl says he cannot be certain whether a more-traditional building would have survived the smaller fire that would have followed because he is not an expert on fires. Even so, he argues, if the World Trade Center towers had been designed "using the codes and traditional systems, the building most likely would have survived — it most likely would not have collapsed."

I may not have the expertise to analyze the merits of the argument, but I'm not ready to so easily dismiss it either. I myself believe that it wasn't a building "flaw" or disregard of code that led to the collapses, but rather that it was an unpredictable circumstance. But regardless, there's meat to Cahill's and Astaneh-Asl's arguments that renders them substantive enough to merit consideration. They shouldn't simply be dismissed. Could you expand on what about the argument doesn't hold water with you? That would make the objection more substantive, and not appear as though it's a rejection for convenience's sake.