The Great Thermate Debate

[Andy_Ross]

Explain the micro-spheres in the WTC dust?

MM

As has been pointed out many times in 'thermite threads' there are any number of environmental sources inclusing brake dust, welding dust and grinding dust etc.

If it was thermite where is the residue? It's reaction produces molten iron, there should be masses of it adhering to the columns and other steelwork. How was it planted? how was it ignited? How did it cut horizantaly?

Why was it used when it has never been used for the controlled demolition of a building before?

Why shouldit be considered when it was just an ad-hoc reason to account for the lack of any evidence of explosive charges?

 

[tsig]

Explain the micro-spheres in the WTC dust?

MM

Why do they need explaining?

 

[A W Smith]

Seems to be Robertson's word against Skilling's. How convenient for Robertson to be able to say things about a dead guy. We've seen errors before in Glanz and Lipton. They're simply taking Robertson, Skilling's hireling's, recollection of things at face value.

Is this all you have? It looks like my references way outnumber yours. So I'm just going to re-post what was said by Skilling for the benefit of those who might be misled:

Again you are cherry picking, No study of the effects of fire in the structure was ever done, Just a three sentence comment that after impact the remaining structure would still be there. All you have is essentially talking points from a sales brochure. "your references" are nothing but an appeal to authority. Which you already know, is a logical fallacy.
PRODUCE THE FIRE STUDY!

 

[ergo]

All you have is essentially talking points from a sales brochure.

It's actually a news article that interviewed Skilling after the 1993 bombing.

 

[Dave Rogers]

1. Where is your data to back up your claim that there was an observable deceleration of the upper block when it fell onto the lower block;

I believe femr2 has posted measurements that show very small decreases in the downward acceleration. Tony Szamboti's data actually shows the deceleration of the upper block that he claims it doesn't show (he removed it by smoothing the data, although I think he didn't realise he was doing it), but that appears to be experimental error.

2. Please explain why it is the "magnitude or duration of those forces (which) determine whether or not there's a jolt" and not the principle of opposing forces as stated by Newton.

Well, first of all, I already answered the second part; the Third Law simply means that the force on one colliding body at any instant is equal and opposite to the force on the other. It doesn't specify anything else whatsoever about the magnitude or direction of either force. The first part should be obvious; a jolt is a significant instantaneous change in the acceleration of the upper block, which - from Newton's second law, which is actually the relevant one here - requires a significant instantaneous change in the force applied to the upper block. A slow change in applied force, for example due to a distributed impact between a tilted upper and a level lower block, will not give a significant jolt, as the force will vary gradually.

Your question, therefore, can actually be re-phrased as: Why can't Newton's second law be derived from his third law? If it's not obvious to you why it can't, I suggest that you enrol in a high school level physics course, which will give you the basic knowledge to answer simple questions like this.

Dave

 

[kylebisme]

And I told you politely where to find them. I even sourced the titles and journals, and linked one of the multiple writeups. You were given exactly the information you requested. All you have to do is read the sources I gave you.

I read the paper you linked, and found nothing in it to rightly substantiate your claim that the damage to the steel recovered by FEMA was not inflicted by thermate. However, as long as you refuse to quote exactly whatever you do believe proves that claim, your not really presenting an argument here, just feigning one.

Well, considering that WPI (BTW, one of the TOP FPE schools in the country) stated that the steel did NOT get to the temperature of therm*te (which would be around 2,800 deg. C.

Sure, like if you light a candle and stick a thermometer in it for a moment before blowing out the candle, you'll never see your thermometer get anywhere close to the temperature of the flame. How hot a material gets from being exposed to an exothermic reaction depends on both the intensity of the reaction and how long it is exposed to it.

Are you aware how far computing has come in 50 years?

Are you unaware of the fact that neither NIST, Purdue, nor anyone else has produced any simulation of the towers actually coming down to disprove Skilling's claim that "the building structure would still be there"? Nearly a decade on now and the closest thing there is to a scientific argument to support the official story is Bazant's crush-down before crush-up nonsense, which could never pass the test of simulation for reasons which should be obvious to anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

 

[beachnut]

I ... Are you unaware of the fact that neither NIST, Purdue, nor anyone else has produced any simulation of the towers actually coming down to disprove Skilling's claim that "the building structure would still be there"? Nearly a decade on now and the closest thing there is to a scientific argument to support the official story is Bazant's crush-down before crush-up nonsense, which could never pass the test of simulation for reasons which should be obvious to anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of physics.

Skilling never said the WTC would not collapse due to fire. False statement made up do to ignorance in physics. You are not using physics, you are using delusional claims to make up false claims. Bazant model is sound, you can't produce a paper to show otherwise. You talk nonsense and will never put it on paper to prove your point.

Why do you and 911 truthlies fail to comprehend E=1/2mv²?

WTC towers designed for an aircraft impact at 180 mph, 263,000 pounds, low on fuel. The most likely accident to happen.


The aircraft on 911 were ~283,000 pounds, ~277,000 pounds, at 470 mph and 590 mph. (NOTE: look at the speeds!!!, now remember in the energy equations the V² term... big hint]

These are the facts based on reality. Why do you make up lies and make a Titanic like claim?

The design would stand with an impact at 180 mph, most the plane would fall to the ground, maybe a hole in the shell and local fires at the impact point, but the fire systems would kick in and stop the fire. The fuel on a lost aircraft in the fog would be low, as in running out of fuel and forced to try and land, lost in the fog. Fuel on 911 on board, 66,000 pounds of fuel, fuel on a low fuel plane in the old days less than 6,000 pounds of fuel. A reason the plane would risk flying lost in the fog, they are running out of fuel, have to land type of bad day.

Then there is an order of magnitude difference on 911 to what was designed for. Robertson is the chief engineer for the WTC towers, Skilling never contradicted the 180 mph impact design point! You can't make up the indestructible claptrap based on Skilling's statement, but you did, and it is a stupid statement.

Order of magnitude; take the weights and speeds and find the impacts on 911 were 7 and 11 times greater than the design of the WTC could handle and survival. Physics proves your claims are moronic claptrap based on ignorance. Next time do the math to save yourself from posting lies.

 

[twinstead]

But outside of the internet, there is no "great thermite debate". Wake me when there IS one.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Outside JREF and a few Thruther websites there is no "great thermite debate" or any kind of 9/11 debate on the internet even.

 

[A W Smith]

Number of building controlled demolitions using thermite = 0

waiting four years now for truthers to show any example whatsoever of a building undergoing controlled demolition using thermite or nanothermite.

Got anything?





Nope.
thought so.
Dismissed.

 

[TruthersLie]

Explain the micro-spheres in the WTC dust?

MM

It has already been done repeatedly with you.
1. When was the dust collected? If you mean RJ Lee, it was 8 and 13 MONTHS after the collapse. It was AFTER the recovery was well in action.

could they be from the recovery? Yup.
can you eliminate those from the RJ Lee studies? no you can't.

Could they have been left over from the creation of the buildings sitting inside of the steel frame and covered, only to be thrown up into the air due to the collapse? yup.
Can you eliminate that? nope.

Could there be about a dozen other reasons? yup.
can you eliminate ANY of them? nope.

It is called basic experimental design. You try to eliminate any confounding variables, if you can't you cannot make any claims about what you have found. Please... pretty please go back to school and take a very basic experimental design course... it would help you a lot.

 

[A W Smith]

Explain the micro-spheres in the WTC dust?

MM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102021

 

[Miragememories]

It has already been done repeatedly with you.
1. When was the dust collected? If you mean RJ Lee, it was 8 and 13 MONTHS after the collapse. It was AFTER the recovery was well in action.

could they be from the recovery? Yup.
can you eliminate those from the RJ Lee studies? no you can't.

Could they have been left over from the creation of the buildings sitting inside of the steel frame and covered, only to be thrown up into the air due to the collapse? yup.
Can you eliminate that? nope.

Could there be about a dozen other reasons? yup.
can you eliminate ANY of them? nope.

It is called basic experimental design. You try to eliminate any confounding variables, if you can't you cannot make any claims about what you have found. Please... pretty please go back to school and take a very basic experimental design course... it would help you a lot.

The Janette MacKinlay sample was taken during the actual collapse.

"the 4th sample was collected by Janette MacKinlay in her 4th floor apartment on Cedar St. at Liberty St. in New York City. This is a very interesting sample because Janette's apartment was just across the street the World trade Center Plaza. As the South Tower (WTC 2) collapsed, she was in her apartment and the force of the collapse and the debris blowing from it across the street broke the windows of her apartment and the dust flowed in. We actually have photographs of the interior of Janette MacKinlay's apartment with this layer of dust everywhere. Now this is a very important sample because it was collected immediately as the tower was falling."

MM

 

[A W Smith]

The Janette MacKinlay sample was taken during the actual collapse.



MM

Are you saying, rather than flee an apartment that was in the process of having its windows burst out by a nearby collapsing building. She took the time to carefully gather up a dust sample? And not flee for her life?


From her own book

The morning of September 11, 2001, found us in our 4th floor loft at 110 Liberty St. watching history unfold before our eyes. Not wanting to become part of the hysteria and panic, we remained inside our loft; never imagining the towers would collapse. Jim was capturing the event with his digital camera as I prepared to evacuate by organizing important papers and possessions. After completing that task, I cleaned the apt. so when we returned everything would be in perfect condition. My last task was to change the water in my flower arrangements and freshen them up. Jim watched the South Tower begin its descent, and ran across the loft, yelling at me, "Get out of here, the building is coming down." We were on our way into our hallway, when the force of the debris cloud, traveling at 50 mph, burst our window and flooded our place with dust and debris.
We immediately headed for the rear exit, only to be stopped in our tracks, by that Killer Cloud, roaring down the street. We returned to our apt. for wet towels to breath through, and after the cloud had passed were able to escape out a rear exit. So began my life as a 9/11 survivor.
We stayed in New York for five weeks in a hotel provided by the Red Cross. This gave me the opportunity to return to our loft and rescue pieces of art, as well as my treasured vase collection.

 

[Miragememories]

Are you saying, rather than flee an apartment that was in the process of having its windows burst out by a nearby collapsing building. She took the time to carefully gather up a dust sample? And not flee for her life?


From her own book

I am suggesting nothing.

The dust came from her apartment and entered when the window burst during the collapse of WTC2.

I know that was the source of the sample. Only Janette MacKinlay, who is now dying from breathing it, knows exactly when she scooped it up.

If you want to start quibbling that it was cleanup dust, go for it.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

And did he test those samples in the correct way? Or did he use the same inaccurate tests as he did on the others?

 

[9/11-investigator]

But outside of the internet, there is no "great thermite debate". Wake me when there IS one.

You probably did not notice but nowadays everything goes via the internet, including 'great thermite debates'.

Keep snoring.

 

[Edx]

You probably did not notice but nowadays everything goes via the internet, including 'great thermite debates'.

Keep snoring.

So I guess theres a debate about evolution vs creationism? I guess theres a debate as to whether man landed on the moon? I guess theres a debate as to whether humans are ruled by the evil Lord Xenu? I guess theres a debate as to whether reptilian shapeshifting aliens run the world?

In regards to the first one, they have much more of a case for a "great debate" than you do and they have no case.

 

[TruthersLie]

I am suggesting nothing.

The dust came from her apartment and entered when the window burst during the collapse of WTC2.

I know that was the source of the sample. Only Janette MacKinlay, who is now dying from breathing it, knows exactly when she scooped it up.

If you want to start quibbling that it was cleanup dust, go for it.

MM

Not at all.

I'm asking for a chain of custody that is verifiable and that shows that there was no tampering.

As with anything from S. Jones, I have serious doubts about his evidence, his science and his claims.

Since you just made a blanket statement, I gave you a blanket answer.

As for the other possible reasons for there to be iron microspheres in HER sample
1. could it have been left over from the construction of the towers and released by the collapse? Yup it could. Can you eliminate it? Nope you can't.
2. could it have been from environmental contamination from her own apartment? Yup it could. Can you eliminate it? nope you can't.
3. could it be from flyash? Yup it could. Can you eliminate it? Nope you can't.
4. How long were they staying at a hotel in NYC? Oh 5 weeks. Could it have been from the start of the clean up? Yup it could. Can you eliminate it? nope you can't.
5. Could it be from the fires in the towers? RJ Lee seemed to think that ironmicrosphere were to be expected (they state so in their papers). (Why would RJ LEE EXPECT to find microspheres? Were they in on it?) Could it have been from the fires? yup they could. Can you eliminate them? Nope you cannot.

Since you cannot rule out other possible explanations you cannot CLAIM that iron microspheres show it was therm*te.

now flail about some more, like normal.

(ps. have you looked up what "legitimate" means yet?)

 

[Edx]

5. Could it be from the fires in the towers? RJ Lee seemed to think that ironmicrosphere were to be expected (they state so in their papers). (Why would RJ LEE EXPECT to find microspheres? Were they in on it?) Could it have been from the fires? yup they could. Can you eliminate them? Nope you cannot.

No no, MM is just saying RJ Lee are incompetent. Only truthers know the truth about iron microspheres, if you find some it means that it has to be from thermite. Cant be from anything else.

Its the same thing with firefighters on 911. When you point out that no 911 firefighters agree with a single thing truthers claim about Building 7 despite dozens and dozens and dozens all on record with their experiences with it that day they will say they dont think they are "in on it" or lying and while I cant drag it out of any of them I guess that leaves mass incompetence for all of them.

Everyone apart from truthers is just too incompetent or stupid to understand such simple concepts that unqualified conspiracy theorists on the internet find so easy to understand. All they have to do is watch the building collapse to "know" it was demolished by high explosives that are quiet (but only in the most destructive part, otherwise the explosives are loud)

I guess its also because the evil NWO has managed to brainwash everyone, probably with HAARP which can also be used as a energy weapon to cause earthquakes. I guess its because truthers are some of the few who can see through the fog of the HAARP mind rays and have somehow been unaffected by the flouride and chemtrails. Thats why they must get the word out, the truth must prevail!!