Merged Molten metal observations

Justin39640 said:
More than the 0 that your non-existent thermXte could have contributed. :D
Click to expand...

You almost nailed it there!! It's like 500 ppm (that's parts per million). Not even if the Exxon Valdez crashed into WTC7 would you get enough sulfur to produce that effect. Go back to the drawing board. You just might get lucky... sometime.
 
Java Man said:
You almost nailed it there!! It's like 500 ppm (that's parts per million). Not even if the Exxon Valdez crashed into WTC7 would you get enough sulfur to produce that effect. Go back to the drawing board. You just might get lucky... sometime.
Click to expand...
Here is the best you can come up with on this topic, both this post and your post of nonsense, and you can't explain a thing about them. Empty words made up with zero effort on your part because you have no clue what you are talking about.
Java Man said:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5306/1621.abstract

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6S-3WDC4CB-9&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F1996&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1726876783&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a79ff03b520df13d26d667d87a86c021&searchtype=a

[URL="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S"]http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFMMR13A0083S[/URL]
Click to expand...
Please explain this post and how it fits with your claims. Good luck

Explain the corroded steel, what temperature did the corrosion take place at?
 
Java Man said:
You almost nailed it there!! It's like 500 ppm (that's parts per million). Not even if the Exxon Valdez crashed into WTC7 would you get enough sulfur to produce that effect. Go back to the drawing board. You just might get lucky... sometime.
Click to expand...

Melting with thermXte wouldn't produce that effect. That's the point.
 
Java Man said:
Plenty I guess. First of all any cut beam we see on ground zero could have been cut by thermite as well. Secondly, what is required to collapse the building is the release of the floors. Which can be achieved with small charges in the strusses. No big charges to cut core beams.
Click to expand...

Silly us! They must have demolished it after the collapse!
 
Fair enough. Let me ask you a different question, then. Why do you need thermXte to be used?
 
TheRedWorm said:
Fair enough. Let me ask you a different question, then. Why do you need thermXte to be used?
Click to expand...

Why don't we open the other thread. Figure out who planted the thermXte and ask them. I have no idea why they needed thermXte. I'm just pointing out the things that add up to a viable explanation of what we see, not trying to pin point the reason behind it.
 
But there are much more plausible explanations given throughout this thread to explain all observed phenomena, but you just hand-wave them away. This behavior suggests that you NEED therm*te to have played a roll. So again, why do you need therm$te to be used?
 
Java Man said:
No it won't. You are correct in that. But it leaves the residue for a later event to take place that does produce that effect.
Click to expand...

Thank you. But based on that and the proposal of thermXte cutting enough beams to cause global collapse... wouldn't this be found all over the pile?

Java Man said:
First of all any cut beam we see on ground zero could have been cut by thermite as well.
Click to expand...

Got a pic of one of these?
 
TheRedWorm said:
But there are much more plausible explanations given throughout this thread to explain all observed phenomena, but you just hand-wave them away. This behavior suggests that you NEED therm*te to have played a roll. So again, why do you need therm$te to be used?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't need therm*te to play a role and I haven't handwaved any explanation. I have just questioned their validity. I've quested for the burden of proof. I've taken your duty, which is to support with data, and found the explanations lacking.

Now they might have sounded sensible in the beginning when you mentioned them. According to forum rules you are not forced to carry the burden of proof and I'm not forcing you to. But please don't call it a handwave when I bring arguments that counter such claims and you are found empty handed and without support. It is not my problem that you never cared to carry the burden of proof. If under scrutiny your explanations hold no water it is your fault and responsibility not mine. You should have carried at least the minimum amount of care to research the basics and figure out if it made sense or not. So your explanations basically add up to a set of statements with no quantitative analysis to back them up and that in many cases contradict themselves. So in the end your camp is your camp's worst opponent.

I've given ample time for your camp to bring forth numbers and you haven't. I on the other hand have brought but simple numbers that have quickly crumbled your explanations. That is not hand waving. That's countering your claims. If your claims and explanations can't even stand up to that that's your problem. Please don't rename your lack of support for your own theories as hand waving on my part.
 
So you think that this exchange:


jaydeehess said:
So we are going to talk about the corroded steel piece from WTC 7 now despite your warning that it would derail the thread....

You seem to have missed the point about sulphates. There are two senarios that are equally valid;
1) that the corrorsion is the result of years of attack by acid deposits which originate from the city air itself. Unprotected steel, concrete,marble, limestone all are known to be affected by such attacks especially if exposed to rainwater.(acid rain)
2) the corrorsion took place during the time when the steel was in the fire and or rubble fire AND in contact with a material with a moderate to high sulphur content such as gypsum board, pvc piping or several other candidates.

I asked you above what properties of thermate, as an incindiary, would allow it to corrode this piece in the fashion we see.

So far you have yet to respond.
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
Sulfur
Click to expand...


Conforms the standard you suggest?
 
TheRedWorm said:
So you think that this exchange:
Conforms the standard you suggest?
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly. As they don't have a reasonable way to occur. City air? Ok NYC can be polluted, but c'mon!!! And why that beam and not the whole building, or the whole block?!?!? The beam in question was not stained red, it was eaten away in its majority. So if it took a lot of sulfur from drywall over the years why didn't people at least notice the hole in the drywall that supplied such large amounts of sulfur. Why isn't this phenomenon seen in other buildings?

As for the time in the rubble. Still no real explanation of the phenomenons that lead to the release of such vast amounts of sulfur have been explained by your camp. Just simple equations with no consideration of the setting and the conditions needed to funnel all that material to the spot where the beam is.

It is a clear example of the type of claims brought by your camp which hold no water under the simplest of scrutinies.
 
I was more getting at your hypocrisy when you answered:
"I asked you above what properties of thermate, as an incindiary, would allow it to corrode this piece in the fashion we see."

with: "sulfur"

How is that answer conforming to your standards?

ETA: I didn't have that specific exchange in mind, I just randomly went back to a post where jm was asked a specific question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom