Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

[triforcharity]

Well evidence for sulfidation was found both on WTC 7 and WTC 1. So that begins to clear the way for a thermite theory.

Well, considering that this sulfidation is a very slow, time consuming process in a highly acidic environment, why would you just to the conclusion of thermite? Especially considering that the folks at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (A top fire engineering school) found that thermite nor explosives could have caused this sulfidation.

Also, you need to try to understand this paper by. Dr (?) Greening.

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

And this response by the NIST.

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/skeptosiswtc7comments.pdf

Now, how does thermite, a quick reacting incendiary, cause a slow acidic attack on steel?

 

[BigAl]

Let me put this another way.

For 30 years, the UK state allocated vast resources to fighting Irish Reblican terrorism; it was, on the whole, unsuccessful despite using what we now know to be some fairly ruthless tactics. What reason is there to believe that that the US could in any way prevent similar attacks using a fraction of the resources?

IMO, if FBI HQ had one group look at all the evidence that was distributed around several FBI branch offices as of the summer of 2001 the plot might have been disrupted.

FBI agent Coleen Rowley went public about this in the spring of 2002.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well evidence for sulfidation was found both on WTC 7 and WTC 1. So that begins to clear the way for a thermite theory.

The sulfidation was explained by the Worcester Polytechnic group (Barnettt, Biederman, Sisson, et. al.) in multiple papers and a couple of different presentations. The sulfidation negates the thermate theory because the temperatures thermate (not thermIte, BTW, not if you're invoking sulfur) achieves would destroy the very sulfidation evidence that the WPI group found. Do a forum search for "eutectic" and read those threads.

Furthermore, the sulfur's source is eminently explained by multiple sources already known to exist within the towers: CRT monitors (remember, this was 2001), various items with organic components, such as paper, rubber, etc. Thermate would actually be a nonsensical proposition, given that it would have to be brought into the towers, and also given that it's use is contradicted by the presence of those very eutectic structures that, I repeat, would've been destroyed by thermate use.

Again: You seriously need to do forum searches for your talking points. You're bringing up things we've refuted years ago.

 

[Java Man]

According to FEMA

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

APPENDIX C: Limited Metallurgical Examination

(page 5)

"C.3 Summary for Sample 1 [WTC 7]
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in
the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
"

Similar comment on sample 2 from WTC 1 or 2.

(page 13)

"C.6 Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

 

[Java Man]

Furthermore, the sulfur's source is eminently explained by multiple sources already known to exist within the towers: CRT monitors (remember, this was 2001), various items with organic components, such as paper, rubber, etc. Thermate would actually be a nonsensical proposition, given that it would have to be brought into the towers, and also given that it's use is contradicted by the presence of those very eutectic structures that, I repeat, would've been destroyed by thermate use.

Good, then show us another steel structure office fire that produces the same result on its steel columns.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

According to FEMA

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

APPENDIX C: Limited Metallurgical Examination

(page 5)

"C.3 Summary for Sample 1 [WTC 7]
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of
oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in
the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
"

Similar comment on sample 2 from WTC 1 or 2.

(page 13)

"C.6 Suggestions for Future Research
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

And the WPI research was conducted because of that very passage you cite. Remember: The FEMA 403's called for further research, and the sulfidation studies by the Worcester group was one of those.

And as I said above: Eutectics do not survive the temperatures that thermate or thermite reacts at. Had that corrosion truly been due to thermite/thermate, then you wouldn't have those left. And also: Let's remember that those pieces were also identified in NCSTAR 1-3C, and I don't recall any of the corroded pieces being at the connection points of the recovered debris.

Again: Read previous threads.

 

[triforcharity]

Good, then show us another steel structure office fire that produces the same result on its steel columns.

Show me another office fire that burns for 99 days! I dare you!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Good, then show us another steel structure office fire that produces the same result on its steel columns.

That's not even a negation; no other fires were anywhere near as big, nor left unfought for hours.

Furthermore, you're really, really missing the point: The sulfidation occurred in the rubble piles, not within the towers themselves. The steel had to be exposed to those extreme conditions for hours to days, and they were left in the rubble piles for weeks. I cannot show you an equivalent steel structure because there has not been a case of a steel structure collapsing and exposing the steel to the chemical processes and extreme heat for days to weeks.

To truly compare the sulfidation in the towers with anything else, you also have to recreate the conditions. And the studies have shown that the grain boundary attack occurred in the piles. The reaction rate alone points at this, let alone the question of how and where the steel experienced the most exposure.

So no, there's no need to show you an equivalent structure. There was no equivalent situtation that's been studied; that's why the WPI group had to recreate some of the conditions in a lab.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

This is what you were asked:

"I want concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations showing that CD was the cause of the WTC collapse.

What explosives were used, how much explosive material was required, where is the proof of explosives (residue, det cord, unexploded material, etc), where were they planted, how long did it take to prep the buildings, who prepped them, how were they prepped without anybody noticing, why there was the need to CD them in the first place, etc."

This is what, after three pages, you responded with:

Ok getting down to the theory.

After listening to many of the debunker positions and a few truther positions I believe the most solid theory would center around the use of thermite and the minimal use (if any of explosives).

Without attempting to sound overly critical, you answer none of the questions adequately enough to satisfy a third grade public school teacher dealing with an underachieving student.

1.You failed to provide a technically viable method of performing a CD.

2. You failed to provide verifiable evidence and/or calculations that would support your claim.

3. You failed to answer the critical ancillary questions regarding amounts, placement, firing sequences, etc.

4. By your own statements, it does not appear that you even bothered to research any of this further than reading a few discussion forum posts on the internet.

5. Your response does not even contain an illumination as to how you arrived at your "belief" (I cannot label it a theory as it lacks the substance for that term by its most general definition).

I'm sure you've heard this many times before, but really, Java Man, can't you do better than that?

 

[triforcharity]

That's not even a negation; no other fires were anywhere near as big, nor left unfought for hours.

Furthermore, you're really, really missing the point: The sulfidation occurred in the rubble piles, not within the towers themselves. The steel had to be exposed to those extreme conditions for hours to days, and they were left in the rubble piles for weeks. I cannot show you an equivalent steel structure because there has not been a case of a steel structure collapsing and exposing the steel to the chemical processes and extreme heat for days to weeks.

To truly compare the sulfidation in the towers with anything else, you also have to recreate the conditions. And the studies have shown that the grain boundary attack occurred in the piles. The reaction rate alone points at this, let alone the question of how and where the steel experienced the most exposure.

So no, there's no need to show you an equivalent structure. There was no equivalent situtation that's been studied; that's why the WPI group had to recreate some of the conditions in a lab.

I agree 110%.

 

[Oystein]

I wouldn't go so far and demand too much detail about exact amount, precise placement, specific dates and times of preparation work. But some ballpark figures and a rough time sequence should be given. I'll grant that he can be excused for not having all the details as long as there has not been a complete new investigation.

I think a complete theory would not start with sightings of molten metal or sulfidized steel, but with - well - the beginning: At around 8:30, a first plane was reported to be hijacked...

Somehow, a complete theory should include the planes and the crashes and the fires that preceded the collapses. If the theory involves thermite and possibly explosives, we have am issue of timing here.

So I propose: Let Java Man first do an abstract of the complete theory. Let's worry about details and evidence later!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Will you allow me to express my theory? I mean my theory as a whole, not just the part about the building collapse. Will you?

What, exactly, do you imagine we can do to stop you?

It's really, really simply. Write down what you think happened, and post it. If you think your whining about the NIST report is preventing you from posting, then stop whining about the NIST report. But for FSM's sake, stop playing the drama queen and complaining that the nasty debunkers won't let you post your theory. You're the one stopping yourself from posting it.

And, frankly, what you've posted so far is pathetic.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ok getting down to the theory.

After listening to many of the debunker positions and a few truther positions I believe the most solid theory would center around the use of thermite and the minimal use (if any of explosives).

And the buildings collapse, obviously!

Theory. Right.

That's not a theory. It's an appeal to magic.

What a waste of time.

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

What would explain the molten fluid pouring out of the tower then? What explains molten metal in the "pile" days after the incident?

Why do you morons talk about the towers like the only thing in them was steel? They were fully operational, fully functioning buildings. I bet you could find just about every kind of metal conceivable in them, including lead from the UPS (uninterruptible power supply) system that was installed in the area that the molten flow was spotted. Many people theorize the metal was the lead from the cells in the batteries of that UPS system.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Come to think of it, there was an aweful lot of plastics inside the buildings. Those would be molten in the fires! Truthers really aren't bright, are they!

 

[T.A.M.]

We'll I was hoping folks would support my incomplete posts as much as they support NIST's incomplete report. It would only be fair.

Should I post in FAQ format?

How much of the NIST report have you read to call it incomplete?

TAM

 

[Edx]

What would explain the molten fluid pouring out of the tower then? What explains molten metal in the "pile" days after the incident?

Isnt it more likely to be something other than a thermite reaction considering that is the only place we can see this molten metal dripping out of any of the buildings?

 

[Edx]

Why do you morons talk about the towers like the only thing in them was steel?

And concrete - DUH! How else could tons of it be pulverised unless it was in the buildings with all that steel?

 

[Oystein]

...I believe the most solid theory would center around the use of thermite and the minimal use (if any of explosives).

And the buildings collapse, obviously!

Ok. What is that most solid theory?

Well for starters there is clear evidence of something like thermite or thermite like reactions occurring. From the bright molten fluid dripping from the tower to the molten metal found days later within the rubble.

So that most solid theory would involve "something like thermite or thermite like reactions occurring", to explain "the bright molten fluid dripping from the tower to the molten metal found days later within the rubble."
Againk, what IS the theory?

What would explain the molten fluid pouring out of the tower then? What explains molten metal in the "pile" days after the incident?

If you'd post your most solid theory that "something like thermite or thermite like reactions occurring", then we are to understand that maybe that theory "would explain the molten fluid pouring out of the tower then? What explains molten metal in the "pile" days after the incident?"
We can assess this once you post the theory. How much thermite or thermate placed where and when, and ignited how and when to do what?

One of the main implications is the use of thermite or similar components to melt metal.

Ok, we got that already. You need thermite to melt metal. Why would anybody want to melt metal?

Well evidence for sulfidation was found both on WTC 7 and WTC 1. So that begins to clear the way for a thermite theory.

Would that sulfidation be the intended goal of the thermite use, or a side effect? How would the use of thermite explain sulfidation? We might understand if you gave us your most solid theory.

Good, then show us another steel structure office fire that produces the same result on its steel columns.

Hmm. Still no solid theory here




I tell you what, Java Man: Why don't you just post your most solid theory? To make it easy on you, I suggest that you don't bother with evidence, observations, other theories. Just tell the theory. Start at the beginning, continue straight through the middle part and all the way to the end:
Who did the planning? When did the preparation take place? What did they do, how did it work, what were the goals? What does the theory explain, and what does it maybe not explain?
Are there planes, hijackers, fires in your theory?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well for starters there is clear evidence of something like thermite or thermite like reactions occurring. From the bright molten fluid dripping from the tower to the molten metal found days later within the rubble.

wrong. The alleged evidence (a grainy low rez, non-color corrected video) is barely submittable proof of some substance, metal, glass, other, flowing for a few moments from one corner of the towers, on a floor, IIRC very near or within the impact floor(s) where an aluminum airliner had just struck.

Orange-Yellow coloring only reflects the temperature of the material, not the melting point, and does not identify the material...sorry.

TAM