Molten Steel

[thewholesoul]

Why are these people soooo stupid? The fact that the photos plainly refute any notions regarding liquid/molten steel I just cannot understand how they can be so blatant. The answer is literally staring them in the face, but they just refuse to acknowledge it.

Bart Voorsanger is NOT a TRUTHER he is an architect standing right next to the evidence and he said it was a fused element of steel and concrete through heat.

But lets test the object because your eyes are no substitute for an elctron microscope.

And if it was exposed to extreme temperatures inexplicable for an office fire and gravity collapse could you acknowledge that?

Thewholesoul - you have been shown Sherman "neckties" before and therefore you know that steel does NOT need the sort of temperatures that you quote being needed.

Correct. The sherman necktie requires minimal heat to weaken the steel before it’s bent around a tree.

NIST identified 4 core columns in the imapct and fire zone of wtc 1 and 2 and the horseshoe I-beam was not one of them. It is quite probable therefore that this beam was not exposed to the wtc pre-collapse fires at all. So where did the heat come from to create a sherman necktie during the collapse?

In any case, in order to determine exactly what temperatures it was exposed to and for how long, the piece must be examined by an electron microsope.

Would you in principle support such an examination? Yes or no.

When we work steel we always try to do it at the minimum temperature possible because this reduces costs. We take extreme care to get the processes correct so as not to deform the material too fast in order to stop cracks forming at these lower temperatures. Have you ever heard of "Creep Forming"? So please learn something and stop repeating falsities.

We both know that i am no expert in metalurgy. What we do know is that there are several hypothesis in relation to the formation of the meteorite, horseshoe, and wtc 7 evapourated steel sample etc. We know that no hypothesis has been empirically proven. Therefore to prove empirically which hypothesis is true, forensic testing and/or experimentation is required. do you agree or not?

This second "meteorite" has been brought up and dealt with earlier in this thread. Norseman posted a link to a longer and clearer clip of the same video that thewholesoul is posting again as well as some pictures in earlier posts, but the pictures don't seem to be available anymore. It is a different artifact then the main object commonly referred to as "the meteorite", but it is also similar in composition. Thewholesoul is rehashing stuff that has already been debunked in this very thread on pages 3-4.

What are you talking about? I am perfectly aware that there are two individual objects labelled as the “meteorite” since my opening post. Norseman clarified that fact to fellow jrefers still confused over the issue – you being one of them!

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Well, I'm glad you got something useful out of my explanation. If it helps you remain comfortable with that decision, I should point out that (a) through (c) are not my problem -- that's a shifting burden of proof. The AVIRIS data is fully sourced and is therefore more reliable, period, until evidence surfaces that supports an alternate viewpoint. Regarding (d), I honestly don't understand what the problem is. There is no question that AVIRIS operated in the Ground Zero area, and offhand I'd guess that system costs somewhere in the $20-50K range per flight hour. They don't have it standing by, ready to respond to emergencies, like an air tanker or rescue helicopter. It isn't that kind of asset.

But thermal images were taken by the firefighters after the the 26th of september, so they couldnt have possibly been hiring the AVIRIS. I made this point in an earlier post. Would you care to address it?

Attacking me does not further your argument.

You’re right and i apologise. It was uncalled for. But i just cant understand why an individual with your scientific background and expertice objects to scientific analyse on a relevant piece of evidence. You know full well that extreme temperature is one possible explanation behind the fusion between steel and concrete in the meteorite. This question could be answered through forensic analyse yet you seem quite content to remain in a state of empirical ambiguity on this issue. i just dont get it.

The simple fact is that the true nature of your "meteorite" is not what you claim it is. You should be able to view it yourself, with minimal effort.

Its “true nature” can be determined through an electron microscope and you know that? Looking at a still photograph is hardly a substitute.

It may interest you to know that Ron Wieck has been in conversation with Dr. Astaneh-Asl of Cal, and if we can work something out he may appear with Ron or even with me on Hardfire.

Great news, i’ll have my popcorn on the ready!

He also in no uncertain terms does not agree with your interpretation of his comments, and greatly wishes the Truth Movement would desist.

That is not surprising as he was an early advocate of the now abandoned “pancake theory”. so how should we intepret his comment that
“he saw melting of girders in wtc”

(a) he saw no melted girders at wtc?
(b) he saw melted girders that were melted from a hydrocarbon fire?
(c) he saw girders actually melting?

Commenting on the connections he states “if you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted – it’s kind of like that”. He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot – perhaps around 2,000 degrees”

(a) you can melt steel without getting it yellow or white hot?
(b) that yellow or white hot steel does not require temperatures of 1,975 and 2,200 degrees fahrenheit respectively?
(c) that the wtc fire reached around 2000 F? (assuming the meteorite was even within the wtc fire zone)

I think his words speak for themselves mackey, but maybe you can explain on the “official” interpretation.

Perhaps you should ask him how he feels about NIST claiming in their final report that “no steel was recovered from wtc 7” http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3.pdf p5 of 184 given the fact that he was the individual who discovered the evporated piece of steel from wtc 7. i would interpret NIST’s comment as a blatant lie. how would you interpret it?

This is a classic example of "cherry picking."

Call it what you will the implications of his words are not congenial to the official collapse hypothesis. speaking of cherry picking why did you only “poke a hole” in one piece of testimony pointing to the presence of extreme heat during collapse?

Finally, your argument that the meteorite should not be forensically examined was that

“there is no reason to assume it was fused by heat”

I countered this “reason” by citing six individuals standing in close proximity to several artifacts formed during the collapse who all assume that extreme heat was involved in their formation. Their testimony is evidence to assume that elements of the meteorite were fused by heat.

So i`m wondering do you have any other reasons why in principle the meteorite should not be forensically examined?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

The excerpt you included did no such thing. Since you didn't include a link to the article, it's reasonable to assume you posted the part that you felt supported your case, and all that your excerpt did was criticise the investigation done up to late December 2001. You've been caught out and you're trying to spin your way out of it.

I posted three articles against the claim that the wtc investigation was sufficient. In hindsight i should have said it was not sufficient because:

It did not investigate thoroughly alternative hypothesis, the presence of exotic accelerants as stipulated in NFPA guidelines, it did not satisfy the scientific requirement of total evidence, it did not satisfy the 911 victims family’s questions, it did not investigate numerous testimony and eye witness reports of explosions and molten steel etc,

Typical truther strawman. All the steel and debris was examined in detail, and a small proportion was chosen carefully as representative of the whole.

how could a small number of steel pieces be representive of the whole when the whole building collapsed along with those pieces?

in any case NONE of the wtc steel should have been destroyed, at least until the investigation was over. This is standard procedure in car accidents, plane crashes etc. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or presumably any investigation guidelines that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation. It simply never happens. Do you have a counter argument to the above statment?

As for you lie. “All the steel and debris was examined in detail”

•All the steel and debris removed from ground zero could have been and should have been photographed and catalogued but it was not. A “detailed examination” would have included such rudamentry protocol.
•Some pieces of steel were destroyed BEFORE they were even examined as we heard in the house committe on science into the investigation into the collapse of wtc “Early confusion over who was in charge of the [WTC collapse] site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort.… Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT [Building Performance Assessment Team] team member ever reached the site”(see September 12-October 2001). So how is it possible that all steel was examined in detail?
•Some pieces after being “saved” for further examination by FEMA were “accidently” recycled: “pieces were accidently processed in the salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study” http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf p10 of 14 so how is it possible that all steel was examined in detail?
•FEMA and NIST did not “examine in detail all” the wtc steel and debris. First they chose what pieces to save [total 236] based on whether the piece was exposed to fire, was hit by a plane, or whether it just had an unusual shape. Once they was chosen to be saved they were tested for asbestos and lead in the paint. After that only those pieces thought relevant to their predetermined collapse hypothesis were later examined in detail e.g. pieces just above or below the impact zone and within the fire zone. For example of the 55 core columns elected to be saved, 12 were positively identified as to their location in the building, but only 4 were later “examined in detail” because they were determined to be in the impact and fire zone. Thats just the core columns. So its a lie to say that ALL the steel was examined in detail. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3.pdf
•The detailed examination of 4 core columns included a visual inspection of the primer paint which contradicted their own collapse hypothesis because it demonstrated that the columns were not exposed to temperatures greater than 250c. Of course the small fraction of core columns tested (due to the criminal destruction of the evidence) meant that this portion were not representive of all the core columns in the fire zone.
•And if all the steel and debris was examined in detail then why would i be here arguing for the examination of certain pieces of steel and debris Dave?

Now lets see you spin your way out a lie Dave.

and dont lie like this again.

peace

 

[Gravy]

Second time, thewholesoul: please point out the details in this photo that enable you to identify it as "M2 glowing in the rubble pile." I again await your reply.

Additionally, you avoided the seven questions in my post 471. Please address them now.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4455182&postcount=471

 

[T.A.M.]

There are many other videos in circulation try the following http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8

I'll see if these work, and take a look.

you’re right. i’ll modify reason #1 to state that one reason to support forensic investigation into the meteorite is because it satisfies a fundamental include it is in accordance with the scientific principle known as the requirement of total evidence. Whereby bla bla bla the meteorite is evidence because it was an effect of the wtc event.

well done.

The presence of molten metal weeks later cannot be “irrelevant” to the NIST since it was an effect of that event. If the NIST cannot explain it then the NIST’s account is incomplete and fails to satisfy the fundamental requirement in scientific reasoning known as the requirement of total evidence, which states scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absense, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion.

The presence of molten metal weeks later is not relevant to the collapse INITIATION as proposed by NIST. NIST self admits they did not go into detail wrt the collapse itself, as it was irrelevant (one the initiation occured the collapse was inevitible). You can argue their conclusions all you want, but according to what they set out to investigate, the molten metal irrelevant.

National Fire Protection Association, “Guide for fire and explosion investigations”, NFPA 921. [Online]. Available: http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/Ab...asp?DocNum=921 [Accessed March 17, 2008].

This link does not work.

The meteorite is a relevant peice of evidence because it was an effect of the WTC collapse. If examined it would reveal information pertaining to its chemical composition, the process of its formation, and what temperature it was exposed to and for how long. All such information is relevant because it can either verify or falsify the official collapse hypothesis. can you please counter directly my above statement pertaining to the relevance of the meteorite.

While I have no problem with a forensic analysis of the meteorite (so long as my conditions were met), I am arguing the reasons (likely) why NIST did not analyze it. If the composition or state of that "meteorite" would have no relevance on how and why the collapse initiated, then they had no reason within their mandate to analyze it. Now you can argue the inadequacy of their mandate if you like, but it is what it is.

In standard investigation evidence of molten steel and concrete indicate the presence of exotic accelerants. Until the presence of exotic accelerants has been ruled in or out by forensic examination logically no conclusion is drawn since the outcome of such forensic examination will directly affect the conclusion one way or the other.

Standard investigation? Forensic or non-forensic or both? Scientific or non-scientific or both? Got a reference (still haven't seen this yet) where you are getting this from? While you are at it, got a reference for what is considered the standard fire safety definition of an "exotic accelerant" is?

The pressure exerted on materials during collapse would not generate extreme heat. The sulfur was most likely an active player in the rubble pile but the meteorite and the other evidence I cited in post #454 are formed during the collapse. Exotic accelerants are also a logical answer because they can generate extreme heat.

1. The first sentence, please prove this. I beg to differ. The pressure exerted through such a long, gravity driven collapse, and subsequent "landing" on the ground, would have produced enormous amounts of pressure and friction, thus generating enormous heat. Can you prove through scientific calculation that insufficient heat would have been generated this way?

2. The exotic accelerant in question, thermite, generates intense heat for very short periods of time, as it reacts with and subsequently melts steel.

3. Others have explained the role of sulfur above. It was a chemical reaction with the steel that produced the "cheese" like appearance, not some biproduct of a thermite reaction.

Like i said before, exotic accelerants exist. Unicorns do not. forensic examination of the meteorite would either verify or falsify the presence of exotic accelerants. In other words, forensic examination establishes empirical truth and ends speculation.

1. well stop arguing over NIST then, as their investigation was not forensic.
2. examination of the meteorite, in the eyes of truthers, would do no such thing. They would then argue that no evidence of thermite with the meteorite, does not mean it wasn't used elsewhere, or to be found elsewhere in the rubble. You know this, so do not pretend examination of the meteorite would settle anything.

Accepting the NIST’s unproven explanation is not a question of morality. Logically one should never accept a scientific explanation until it has been proven to be true empirically. I guess the moral argument can swing both ways. However I am with the victims family members seeking a new investigation because I see no valid reason why, in principle, such an investigation should not take place.

like all moral questions, it is a personal one...I will leave it at that.

One final note: arguing against my reasons for forensic investigation in relation to the meteorite is self contradicting because you have stated in several posts that you do not oppose such an investigation, in principle, provided certain conditions are met.

I am not arguing against you obtaining a forensic analysis of said "meteorite" so long as my preconditions are met. I am arguing the reasons why NIST did not do such an analysis. There is a difference.

Look you were arguing that planting explosives in a building is impossible. It is not impossible, its improbable.

peace

ok, in the realm of where everything in the universe is "possible" I guess the suggestion of explosives is possible...but extremely, EXTREMELY improbably, with no evidence in favor of it.

TAM

 

[Senenmut]

Now, you just need to figure out that they are talking about what the standards are today, not what they were when the towers were built. Why don't you see what you can find out about fly ash during that timeframe?

no fly ash.
Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Concrete is composed of aggregate, sand, and Portland cement (Chandra and Berntsson, 2003). The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale. The sand is primarily quartz, but can contain feldspar, iron and titanium oxides, micas, and other rock-forming minerals.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading06

 

[funk de fino]

It did not investigate thoroughly alternative hypothesis, the presence of exotic accelerants as stipulated in NFPA guidelines,

This is for arson investigators not NIST. Stop being dishonest.

it did not investigate numerous testimony and eye witness reports of explosions and molten steel etc,

NIST studied all the witness statements of explosions and even interviewed some of them again. None thought the towers had been CD'd.

how could a small number of steel pieces be representive of the whole when the whole building collapsed along with those pieces?

Because some could not be identified, it was no use.

in any case NONE of the wtc steel should have been destroyed, at least until the investigation was over. This is standard procedure in car accidents, plane crashes etc. There is nowhere in the NFPA guidelines, or presumably any investigation guidelines that call for the destruction of evidence, and then the investigation. It simply never happens. Do you have a counter argument to the above statment?

Stop throwing up NFPA, it does not apply in this case and is only guidelines anyway.

As for you lie. “All the steel and debris was examined in detail”

I have already linked you to a explanation of the steel examination. If you disagree with the statements from the guy who was there then please contact them and stop making assumptions here and calling someone a liar.

•All the steel and debris removed from ground zero could have been and should have been photographed and catalogued but it was not. A “detailed examination” would have included such rudamentry protocol.

Except again, I have linked you to someone who claims this was done.

Now lets see you spin your way out a lie Dave.

and dont lie like this again.

peace

Stop calling him a liar.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf


Page 8, assertion 6. There are contacts you could chase up and ask for further clarification.

 

[R.Mackey]

But thermal images were taken by the firefighters after the the 26th of september, so they couldnt have possibly been hiring the AVIRIS. I made this point in an earlier post. Would you care to address it?

Sheer, unadulterated denial.

I've already linked you to this, but read this paper. They show raw data along with the analysis. This leaves absolutely no doubt that:

1. AVIRIS overflew the WTC site on 16, 18, 22, and 23 September 2001.

2. AVIRIS is the only instrument deployed capable of an accurate temperature measurement.

3. AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 984 K, or 1311^oF. This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.​

Third and last time I'm explaining this to you. That you would deny the flights even took place is utterly pathetic.

You’re right and i apologise. It was uncalled for. But i just cant understand why an individual with your scientific background and expertice objects to scientific analyse on a relevant piece of evidence. You know full well that extreme temperature is one possible explanation behind the fusion between steel and concrete in the meteorite.

Two Bare Assertion Fallacies. There is no reason to think this particular chunk is a "relevant piece of evidence." You insist it is, but you have no reason to do so. Second, extreme temperature is not an explanation for fusion between steel and concrete. Steel and other steel, sure, but steel and concrete, not so much. That's why you don't understand. You're making up or parroting things about an object you haven't seen and none of your heroes in the Truth Movement understand.

Its “true nature” can be determined through an electron microscope and you know that? Looking at a still photograph is hardly a substitute.

Call to Perfection fallacy. Nobody has to haul out an electron microscope just to shut you up. You'd probably keep complaining anyway.

[more mystification of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's comments]I think his words speak for themselves mackey, but maybe you can explain on the “official” interpretation.

No, talking to him speaks for itself. You're quote-mining his comments. Again, pathetic. He does not agree with you or your interpretation of his words at all.

Perhaps you should ask him how he feels about NIST claiming in their final report that “no steel was recovered from wtc 7” http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-3.pdf p5 of 184 given the fact that he was the individual who discovered the evporated piece of steel from wtc 7. i would interpret NIST’s comment as a blatant lie. how would you interpret it?

I interpret what you're saying as an utter failure to understand context, that's what. From NCSTAR1-3:

No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. However, the columns were fabriacted from conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steel produced to ASTM specifications.

Unlike WTC 1 and WTC 2, no recovered steel in the NIST inventory can be unambiguously assigned to WTC 7. Therefore, properties of the steel were estimated completely from the literature.

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality.

Emphases added. So later on, when NIST simplifies and says things like this:

No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.

...now you know what they mean.

There is no conflict, and even if there was all you found was a typo. Ridiculous.

Call it what you will the implications of his words are not congenial to the official collapse hypothesis. speaking of cherry picking why did you only “poke a hole” in one piece of testimony pointing to the presence of extreme heat during collapse?

To illustrate that testimony is useless in this context. Without a way to estimate temperature, i.e. actually measuring it, talk is worthless. The only measurement is AVIRIS, and it disproves your whole spiel.

I countered this “reason” by citing six individuals standing in close proximity to several artifacts formed during the collapse who all assume that extreme heat was involved in their formation. Their testimony is evidence to assume that elements of the meteorite were fused by heat.

No, you cherry-picked a bunch of nonsense that you don't understand. The one you cited the most is the one that I've been in personal contact with, and he says you're full of it. Burden of proof lies on you to get better data.

Anyway, we're done here. You have nothing new. Any further comments you may have on the subject, I hereby refer you to my complaint department.

 

[thewholesoul]

Do you believe that architect's (ironworkers) statement that it takes thousands of degrees to bend a piece of steel like that, thewholesoul?

I know that that iron worker thought it takes thousands of degrees to bend that particular piece of steel because he said so. Logically without forensic analyses of the steel i can only believe that his statement might be true.

If so, on what science to you base your claim?

I am not making a claim, i am open minded enough to recognize that there are more than one way to bend a piece of steel mark, i am arguing that such relevant pieces of evidence from the wtc event should be tested so as we can all say with empirical certainty what actually caused it to bend.

Hint: you might want to look into the role of pressure.

I know pressure can bend steel, but you know there are more than one way to bend steel mark. To determine which way it actually was forensic examination is required. Would you support a forensic examination mark? Or would you prefer to endlessly speculate?

You might also want to read the NIST reports.

Perhaps you can cite the page number where they analysed the horseshoe I-beam that the iron worker claims it takes thousands of degrees to bend into that form. Can you do that for me mark? Find me the quote and page number where NIST claims that the I-beam the iron worker says was bent by thousands of degrees was bent by pressure during the collapse.

You might also want to consider what made this column in WTC 5 buckle.

Why? That column had buckling, the i-beam in the video i posted had none.

A correction to my post 469:

oops

I couldn't view the Judy Wood video

It works on my computer! http://drjudywood.com/media/horseshoe.mov after a blank page pops up give it give it about 5 minutes and it will appear.

What is the minimum temperature and force necessary to bend the I-beam into a horseshoe-shape? Show your figures.

I dont have any and you know that so why make fruitless requests mark? Forensic analyse of the beam could identify whether it was indeed exposed to the temperatures cited by the iron worker. An office fire or pressure from the collapse cannot generate such temperatures.

How can it have been heated to "thousands of degrees," as the ironworker says, while retaining the rest of its shape? Might the ironworker be mistaken about that?

Might you be mistaken mark? But why not support an investigation of that horseshoe beam so we can determine who is right, the iron worker with years of experience standing right next to the beam or you googling behind your computer screen.

Is there any evidence of thermite use on these columns?

There doesnt appear to be. but what was of interest from the iron workers perspective was that an 8 ton steel beam could bend into a horseshoe without cracking or buckling according to him this would require thousands of degrees. But the wtc fire did not reach 2000 degrees fahrenheit mark.

What caused the column in WTC 5 to buckle? Any evidence of thermite use there?

Sorry, i havent researched wtc5.

What caused these I-beams to assume a horseshoe shape? Thermite?

Not likely. But whats with the redirection? The horseshoe I-beam i posted it at issue and there are more than one way to bend steel. posting a different I-beam and suggesting that they were the result of the same causal process is poor reasoning on your behalf. If you truly wanted to determine the causal process of the horseshoe beam that i posted you would be in favor of its examination. But you prefer to remain in empirical ambiguity on this issue, correct?

This I-beam was wrapped around a tree after a tornado. Do you think thermite was involved in this event?

No need for the silly questions mark. We all know termites, not thermite, were involved.

The huge steel beams of this Miami transit system were curved without the use of heat. How is that possible?

There are many ways to bend steel, the application of extreme heat being one of them. but your argument that the horseshoe beam was bent by the pressure during collpase is weak. Posting photos of various examples of how steel can bend in no way removes or negates the possibility that the horseshoe beam i posted was formed with extreme temperature. The only way to eliminate this possibility is through a forensic examination.

thewholesoul, please point out the details in the photo that enable you to identify it as "M2 glowing in the rubble pile." I await your reply. Thanks.

No-can-do – good job mark.

The bbc photo is ambiguous and the webpage i borrowed this assertion, that the glowing object in the photo was M2, is unreliable.

While we're at it, thewholesoul, what can you tell us about this horseshoe-shaped column?

I am here to argue the case for a forensic examination of certain artifacts from the rubble not to discuss every photo you manage to dig up. Besides the horsebeam you posted from the NIST report exhibits buckling, the horsebeam beam i posted does not.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Are you really unaware that Quintiere's own investigation indicated that the towers would likely have collapsed from the fires alone, without sustaining prior damage? Your comment on his investigation?

Post me a link.
But what i will be looking for is whether he conducted any experiments with representative samples of steel to prove his collapse hypothesis? and whether he performed a forensic examination on relevant pieces of evidence.

Why do you lie so blatantly? The FDNY never said any such thing. Further, are you really unaware that Bill Manning, as editor of Fire Engineering, encouraged and welcomed the NIST investigation and was pleased with its results? Don't take my word for it: ask him.

My mistake it was the fire fighter trade magazine with ties to the NYPD who called the investigation a half baked farce.

Peace

Without forensic examination of the “meteorite” it is impossible to determine with empirical certainty what process caused its formation. Do you agree with this statement?

Of course not. It is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense mark? Can you provide me with some reasons why it makes no sense to you. Do you even know what empirical certainty means? And how it is obtained? If “of course not” is the best argument you can make then i’m afraid that just not good enough.

But let's say you're given access to this compacted rubble, and have competent scientists at your disposal with all sorts of equipment to do tests on it.

Now, where did these sections of floors originate, and exactly what do you think you could learn about the cause of the collapses by examining them?

• An x-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) would tell us the elemental composition of the sample
• An electron energy-loss spectroscopy would tell us the elements undetectable by the XEDS
• An electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope would tell us phase information e.g. the formation of certain precipitates would tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached and how long it was exposed to such temperatures.

Where these sections of floor originated is irrelevant because if the minimum temperature the meteorite was exposed to was found to be GREATER than the KNOWN temperatures of the wtc fires it doesnt matter whether the floors where situated within the fire zone or below the fire zone when formed.

In response to DGM’s comment that

You do realize that there were thousands of tons of these [compressed and fused debris like the meteorite] and they were seen by hundreds of people? (look at pictures of the GZ clean up, they're all over the place).

I replied

thousands of tons and still not one forensically examined.

To which you replied

Wow, you're ignorant.

you then go on to post three links presumably in attempt to prove my ignorance, that indeed compressed and fused debris like the meteorite were forensically examined for their chemical composition and temperature exposure.

1. Ground Zero cleanup, Fires in piles, Molten metals, Fresh Kills operations, Steel ID & scrap issues

I found not one article or comment refering to the forensic examination of compressed and fused debris (like the meteorite) for its chemical composition and temperature exposure. What i did find was forensic examination for DNA and body parts. You do know there are different applications in forensics Mark?

2. Ground Zero worker health issues, Respirator use, Dust composition, Environmental Testing

I found not one article or comment refering to the forensic examination of compressed and fused debris (like the meteorite) for its chemical composition and temperature exposure. What i did find was forensic examination of the wtc dust. You do know that a compressed and fused meteorite is not quite the same thing as dust Mark? For instance the point of origin and source of the dust particles can be a point of debate, this however is not the case for the meteorite because we know it orginated during the collapse. Besides jones already analysed the dust and found evidence for extreme temperatures during the wtc collapse. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

3. 9/11 Forensics and Victim Identification

I didnt bother reading the articles under the above link as the title speaks for itself. Again you fail to realize that there are different applications in forensics.

In future please refrain from insults as i come here for polite and rational debate. Thanks. Moreover i expect an apology for your unfounded insult.

Peace

 

[thewholesoul]

I challenge you to write a sensible refutation of NIST's analysis and conclusions about the temperatures reached in that corner of the south tower. You have read that part of the report, haven't you? Then you must know what's wrong with it. Also, you're aware that that side of the tower was in the shade, aren't you?

Mark, there is no need to write any refutation. The so-called quack jones has already proved their hypothesis false through experimentation and experimentation trumps any authorative statement. You would appreciate this fact if you had any scientific background.

The burden of proof moreover is on NIST to prove their own claim i.e. that the bright yellow-orange molten flow was aluminium mixed with organics. Some of their affiliates have already tried...and failed. Here take another look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY do you care to comment on NIST’s inability to prove their own hypothesis through experiment?

Besides my challenge remains “to produce a bright orange glow, as seen flowing from the south tower, from molten aluminium mixed with organics in daylight using temperatures no greater than expected from a hydrocarbon jet fuel fire.”

Challenging me is just another attempt on your behalf to redirect the argument.

What hypothesis do you support that is based on observations that are not demonstrably false and that don't come from crackpots?

Again your inability to aprpeciate the empirical method is shining through. Lets see what i said,

i dont have a theory what i support is a hypothesis. forensic examination of relevant evidence will either confirm or reject that hypothesis. its real simple.

The hypothesis i support is that the towers were demolished by controlled demolition.

According to NFPA guidelines the observation of rapid rate of fire growth, brillant flares, and melted steel and concrete are all indications of exotic accelerants. These observations alone merit further forensic examination to confirm or reject the presence of exotic accelerants. Until then the presence of exotic accelerants cannot possibly be demonstrated to be false.

Over 600 architects and engineers observed many characteristics during the demolition of wtc 1, 2, and 7 that have only been observed in controlled demolition. http://www.ae911truth.org/

Observations like that by the Bart Voorsanger in relation to the fusion of steel and concrete on the meteorite cannot be demonstrated to be false until a forensic examination to confirm or reject this observation has taken place. How many times must this fact need repeating?

peace

It is highly unlikely that any destructive testing of the rubble will be allowed, since it is being preserved for possible inclusion in the 9/11 memorial. A truly compelling case would have to be made that such testing is necessary because there's something suspicious about the rubble that cannot be explained without scientific examination. Having seen the rubble, I can say that there's nothing at all suspicious about it. If truther babble doesn't convince me, I doubt that it's going to convince the curators. That said, if the rubble isn't chosen for inclusion in the memorial/museum, perhaps then it may be available for superficial examination.

Mark stundie Roberts, have you any other super human talents that your holding from us?

Bart Voorsanger commenting about the same artifacts from the rubble you have seen states “the architects, engineers, people who work with steel, welders, have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in their lives.” http://drjudywood.com/media/horseshoe.mov

Remember it requires a little patience before the video on the above link to download.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

You still haven't addressed how Steven Jones can claim metal solidified around steel rebar without the rebar melting. Did Jones test it?

No jones has requested permission to take samples. So of course he didnt test it.
As to your question how can metal solidify around steel rebar without the rebar melting? Perhaps you should direct your your question to Bart Voorsanger who obviously assumes that it was possible. Personally i couldnt tell you exactly how it can occur but i am quite sure that it’s beyond the realm of possibility.

No, there is only ONE.

No, there are two. Read Norsemans post on page 3 of this thread.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

thousands of tons and not one forensically examined

You cannot know this.

wrong. the people in charge of the investiagtion FEMA and NIST to my knowledge have never conducted forensic examination on the "meteorite" for its chemical composition and exposure to temperature.

if you disagree then the burden of proof is on you to produe the forensic examinations because it is impossible for me to prove a negative.

There could have been scores of those "meteorites" that were examined.

you sound unsure, why dont you research a bit and find out whether scores or even one of these meteorites have been forensically examined for its chemical composition and exposure to temperature.

In fact I would expect that there were many of these at the site. There is no need to examine every single remaining one of them including the only one or two left in a hangar.

maybe we could start by examing one, and move on from there.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

No. The "swiss cheese" steel you're referring to was clearly eroded chemically. The sharp edges left on that steel by the process would have been melted away by thermite.

you make a good point. is it supported by any representative experiments.

but some studies i have just recently found have sought to determine the cause.

A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel. To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C. http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html#trade 900c =1652 F

Analysis of the Cause of the Severe Erosion Damage Observed in Structural Steel Components from the 9/11 World Trade Center Incident
A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/News/seminars3.html#trade

i am unable however to find any further details of their studies.

the first one uses temperatures of 900c and 1100c did such temperatures exist in the rubble pile because they certainly didnt exist in building 7 according to official acount?

peace

 

[Sunstealer]

the first one uses temperatures of 900c and 1100c did such temperatures exist in the rubble pile because they certainly didnt exist in building 7 according to official acount?

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature.

Therefore 900-1100°C temperature range is a sensible range to test at. I'd like to have seen that presentation and/or the paper it's based upon.

 

[roundhead]

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature.

Therefore 900-1100°C temperature range is a sensible range to test at. I'd like to have seen that presentation and/or the paper it's based upon.

Yet a hydrocarbon fire, the likes of which we are told was the culprit, doesnt reach those temps, certainly not in a "non perfect" environment, such as the fires of that day.

 

[thewholesoul]

The fact that Fe-S-O eutectic was observed in the metallographic samples taken from WTC steel proves that a temperature as high as 940°C must have occurred, because Fe-S-O eutectic does not form below that temperature. Therefore 900-1100°C temperature range is a sensible range to test at. I'd like to have seen that presentation and/or the paper it's based upon.

The only reliable data we have in relation to the temperatures in the rubble pile was from the AVIRIS.

AVIRIS saw no temperature higher than 1311^oF. This temperature rules out molten steel in the aftermath.

[Note: 1311 F = 710 c]

So either:

Mackey is wrong and the rubble pile did exceed the temperatures recorded by the AVIRIS.

Or

Mackey is right and the Fe-S-O eutectic somehow formed within the wtc 7 fire.

what do you think?

peace

 

[T.A.M.]

I am still waiting for proof that Mackey actually said "Temperatures at GZ COULD NOT HAVE reached 2800F".

I recall him saying that there is no PROOF of these temps (outside of the single quote from the article we discussed earlier), but that is not the same as saying they COULD NOT have occurred.

TAM

 

[Sunstealer]

Yet a hydrocarbon fire, the likes of which we are told was the culprit, doesnt reach those temps, certainly not in a "non perfect" environment, such as the fires of that day.

And thermite would not produce an Fe-O-S eutectic either.

 

[Sunstealer]

The only reliable data we have in relation to the temperatures in the rubble pile was from the AVIRIS.


[Note: 1311 F = 710 c]

So either:

Mackey is wrong and the rubble pile did exceed the temperatures recorded by the AVIRIS.

Or

Mackey is right and the Fe-S-O eutectic somehow formed within the wtc 7 fire.

what do you think?

peace

I think you are producing a false dichotomy.