DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

If you wish to claim that there is, in fact, good reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing, then the burden of proof is on you.

1. Eutectic reactions were never before observed in a building fire

2. FEMA's metalurgical investigation did not determine when the eutectic reactions took place i.e within the debris pile or prior to collapse

3. Various sphericules were discovered in the wtc dust and could nto have been formed in the debris pile; the presence of these sphericules indicate extreme temperatures prior to collapse

4. The 8 ton 6 inch steel beam bent into a horseshoe again indicates the presence of extreme temperatures prior to collapse

5. Molten metal was observed spewing from the 82nd floor in the south tower. if this metal was iron then that would indicate extreme temperatures prior to collapse

Overall strong case for eutectic reactions prior to collapse can be made but is by no means conclusive.

What are you reasons why the eutectic reactions did not occur prior to collapse?

 

[Norseman]

now how does an eight ton steel I-beam six inches thick bend into a near perfect horseshoe without almost a single crack in it? this cannt be explained be a smoldering low temperature fire because it takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

so (a) when was the steel beam bent, and (b) where did the temperatures come from?

I note that thewholesoul is attempting to erect a straw man here and trick his opponents into explaining how this could have occurred in the debris pile after the collapse. While the correct answers are found in what occurred before and during the collapse of one of the towers.

ETA
I note that he in his last post are using it to prove extreme temperatures before collapse. But the fires in the towers were more than hot enough.

 

[Norseman]

2. FEMA's metalurgical investigation did not determine when the eutectic reactions took place i.e within the debris pile or prior to collapse

Note that NIST concluded in relation to sample #2 that it occurred after the collapse and not prior to the collapse.

See post #775 in this thread.

 

[thewholesoul]

I don't remember if i asked you this or not TWS, but can your provide us with documentation proving thermite was ever used to destroy a building?

I would be among the first to admit that there are problems with the thermite hypothesis. I sincerely believe that more experiments should be done on scale steel beams to test the thermite cutter charge hypothesis.

As for providing documentation: either the wtc buildings were
(a) the first ever global collapse from fire
(b) the first ever global collapse from thermite cutter charges
(c) or none of the above.

I recognize that there is no documentation pre 911 of thermite cutter charges causing global collapse of a steel highrise building. But I also recognize the fact there is no documentation of a steel high rise globally collapsing from minor structural damage and an office fire either. Your attempt therefore to discredit or undermine the plausibility of the thermite cutter-charge hypothesis due to lack of historical precendence and documentation just as equally applies to the position you yourself ascribe to.

At the end of the day if these red chips are what steven jones claims they are and these red chips are indepentently verified by other scientists to be ungnited nanothermite, then the debate is over as what in earth would nanothermite be doing in the dust of the WTC buildings?

But if they are not verified to be nanothermite then the search will continue for some other explosive (e.g. HMX, RDX) or combination of explosives because the truth is the official hypothesis is itself an untruth.
Just take a look at the following photos: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=17&MMN_position=22:22 It is inconcievable that this kind of damage could be explained away by a fire and gravity collapse.

The difference between me and you is the following: if experiments were actually conducted using thermite cutter charges and jones was unable to prove that thermite could cut through or even weaken the steel beams then i could nolonger support the thermite cutter charge hypothesis.

You on the other hand continue to support the official hypothesis eventhough physical experiments were conducted by NIST which demonstrably failed to prove the official hypothesis!

NIST tested floor assemblies with more intense fire and for longer and none collapsed. The steel did not melt. NIST then looked to "floor sagging" as the mechanism behind initial collapse. But one small problem: the amount of floor sagging calculated by the NIST computer models was 10 times greater than the actually floor sagging in the physical tests!!

In figure 3-15 from NCSTAR 1-6 http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf After exposing 4 floor assemblies to 2hrs of fire the maximum sagging recorded was 16 inches. After a more realistic fire duration of 50 mins there was less than 4 inches of sagging observed.

In contrast, figure 4-24 from NCSTAR 1-6 http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf NIST’s computer simulations calculated a maximum sagging of more than 42 inches! Thats more than 10 times the amount of sagging measured during the physical tests resulting from a realistic fire duration.

Now how can you support the official hypothesis when physical experiments prove it to be untrue? How would you feel if jones went along and made a computer simulation of a thermite cutter charge that inflicted 10 times the amount of damage than the physical experiments? What would you think? Would you accept the computer simulation or would you object to it?

The truth is you believe a hypothesis that still to this date remains unproven . To quote NIST “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” and the hypocracy in it all is that you hold other hypothesis to higher standards than you do your own.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

It is not uncommon for truthers to claim that explosives were used together with thermite. Give me an example of a documented case of thermite and explosives being used in combination to initiate the collapse of a building. And explosives do not generate particularly high temperatures; they work by generating blast to fracture structural elements, not by melting them.

give me an example of a skyscraper been brought down by fire.

It is impossible for either to explain the high temperatures you want to invoke several weeks after collapse.

i want an explanation for the extreme temperatures before and during collapse explosive chemical reactions can and do produce such extreme temperatures. a normal office fire feed by jet fuel cannot.

The simple explanation is that the microspheres were created in one or more of the many completely innocuous processes already identified and conveniently ignored by Steven Jones

are molybdenum sphericules explained by crazy chainsaws and apollo20? after reading the thread they seem to be more preoccupied with iron sphericules. what innocuous process will i find molybdenum sphericules? can they for instance be formed below there melting point as is the case for the iron sphericules according to chainsaw?

and that the molten steel never existed except in the hyperbole of journalists.

1) there is just too much testimony to be ignored. www.georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
2) FEMA's metalurgical examination examined eutectic reactions on STEEL.

Steven Jones's sampling procedures are well-known to be highly suspect.

your obviously biased. if dr greening has no objections to jone's sampling why should you? besides jones's results are not unsimilar to the findings of the other samples.

The remaining studies and samples aren't, to my knowledge, being used to support the idea that there was something suspect about the WTC collapses.

really?

Yes, you're wrong. (a) Evidence pointing to extreme temperatures has to be considered critically, as has any other evidence.

i agree

(b) I've already said what the explanation is, you've just continued to refuse to acknowledge it.

we have four things to my mind
1) molten metal
2)the sphericules; you say they were already there
3) the eutectic reactions; you say was caused by the rubble pile
4) the bending of the 8 ton beam seen here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
and the numerous other deformed beams here: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...position=22:22
what is your explanation for that?

(c) There is a complete and reasonable scenario which doesn't require any unfeasibly high temperatures in the rubble pile, and then there's an incomplete scenario, which is absurd for many other extraneous reasons, which fails to explain the unfeasibly high temperatures claimed as evidence for it. Forgive me for being reasonable, but the former seems rather more useful to me.

i dont understand how you can be so confident in your assumptions? eutectic reactions have never before been observed in a building fire, it was rightly described as a •"mysetery" by the New York times and it has still to this day not been fully explained since FEMA's suggestion for more investigation was never undertaken by NIST. Yet anyone lsitening to you would be forgiven if they thought that all is explained and that such mysteries happens all the time! this of course could not be further from the truth.

Put very simply, your half-formed theory doesn't explain your alleged anomalies.

ok why not? there are four things i mentioned above (1) various sphericules (2) lead and steel evaporation (3) disfigured steel beams (4) molten metal

now you provide me an convincing explanation for each of the above within the boundaries of the official position (positive argument) and then provide an equally convincing explanation as to why none of the above can be caused by explosive chemical reactions (negative argument).

Until you've produced your equivalent of what you're demanding from the rest of us - that is to say, a complete narrative of the processes and mechanisms leading to the high temperatures

there you go http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

you claim to have existed in the rubble pile many weeks after the collapses

why does everyone in this room keep repeating this point? i think the extreme temperatures before the complete collapse is the main issue.

explained in terms of thermite and explosives

admittedly there is no concensus on exactly what exploisves were used to demolish the towers. the only relevant question is whether explosive chemical reactiosn can produce the anomolies. if you dont think they can well lets hear it because Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe would all disagree with you.

and backed up by examples from other incidents

and what incidents do you plan on backing up your assumptions with?

then you have no argument to answer

the argument is there. but your answer....

peace

 

[bio]

that was a very powerful post, a demonstration from peace.
I am looking forward to the answer.

 

[thewholesoul]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_17074484ec4e79631e.jpg[/qimg]

Thewholesoul:
Posting this picture as proof of "pools of molten metal" is moronic. The fire fighters face would be on fire from the radiant heat. You know this. Don't be stupid.

I agree. i dont stand by everything in the links i posted. there is a hell of a lot of disinfo circulating. but on the whole i find there is ample evidence for molten steel in the links i posted you

 

[bio]

... but photos provide evidence of hanging floors slab, perimeter columns sagging inward.

Can this be an effect of the plane-crash?
It would be great to have two photos from the same perimeter columns: Just after the plane-crash and shortly before collapse. Is there a difference in the perimeter columns?

 

[Dave Rogers]

there you go http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

That isn't an account of how high temperatures in the rubble pile weeks after the collapses were caused by thermite, it's a piece of speculation on the possible origins of microspheres. Try again. Until you've produced your equivalent of what you're demanding from the rest of us - that is to say, a complete narrative of the processes and mechanisms leading to the high temperatures you claim to have existed in the rubble pile many weeks after the collapses, explained in terms of thermite and explosives and backed up by examples from other incidents - then you have no argument to answer.

why does everyone in this room keep repeating this point? i think the extreme temperatures before the complete collapse is the main issue.

The "extreme temperatures before the complete collapse" is a piece of unproven speculation. Unless you have proof of extreme temperatures before the collapse, your "main issue" is nonexistent.

the only relevant question is whether explosive chemical reactiosn can produce the anomolies.

No, the only relevant question is whether only thermite or demolition explosives can produce the anomalies. In fact, they can all be explained by processes known to have occurred before or during the collapse and subsequent fires.

if you dont think they can well lets hear it because Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Dr. Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Daniel Farnsworth, and Dr. Crockett Grabbe would all disagree with you.

I'm happy to be quoted as saying I think they're all wrong. Jones's work is full of internal contradictions, Legge's work is utterly laughable, and Kevin Ryan is a proven liar.

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

give me an example of a skyscraper been brought down by fire.

When you provide an example of a skyscraper with the same:

• construction system (tube on tube)
• impact damage
• fire starting at multiple floors simultaneously
• with fires that were not fought

You get where I am going with this... the damage caused to the towers by either planes or debris from a nearby collapse is inseparable... nothing personal but that is a relevant issue here. WTC 7 isn't much different, we know it was hit by debris like every other building in the immediate vicinity of WTC 1 & 2, the only thing lacking is clear visual documentation of the worst of that damage.

I'm not sure why you relegate the collapses to fire :\

a normal office fire feed by jet fuel cannot.

I'll assume you know better already but for the sake of people reading... jet fuel served mainly as an ignitor... But the fire wasn't 'normal' it was ignited on several floors, not in one place as seen in most examples...

4) the bending of the 8 ton beam seen here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
and the numerous other deformed beams here:

I answered to this earlier... steel doesn't need to be heated excessively to cause creeping (sagging of the beams). It even happens without heat, although under typical circumstances it is expected to progress over a number of years. Heating up the steel to the point of losing 50% of its integrity while carrying a load speeds it up greatly...

ok why not? there are four things i mentioned above (1) various sphericules (2) lead and steel evaporation (3) disfigured steel beams (4) molten metal

now you provide me an convincing explanation for each of the above within the boundaries of the official position (positive argument) and then provide an equally convincing explanation as to why none of the above can be caused by explosive chemical reactions (negative argument).

1) Falls outside of my field of expertise
2) lead & steel corrosion can cause material break down over time
3) Answered above
4) Answered before

 

[Par]

If you wish to claim that there is, in fact, good reason to think that the eutectic reaction took place while the buildings were standing, then the burden of proof is on you.

1. Eutectic reactions were never before observed in a building fire

2. FEMA's metalurgical investigation did not determine when the eutectic reactions took place i.e within the debris pile or prior to collapse

3. Various sphericules were discovered in the wtc dust and could nto have been formed in the debris pile; the presence of these sphericules indicate extreme temperatures prior to collapse

4. The 8 ton 6 inch steel beam bent into a horseshoe again indicates the presence of extreme temperatures prior to collapse

5. Molten metal was observed spewing from the 82nd floor in the south tower. if this metal was iron then that would indicate extreme temperatures prior to collapse.

1. This is odd.

• Eutectic reactions were never before observed in a building fire.
• Therefore, the eutectic reactions probably occurred during the building fire.

It amounts to a complete inversion of the precedent-based argument you have been relying upon so far. Going by your own measure, this serves as evidence that the reactions did not take place during the building fires, but more likely under the relatively unusual conditions within the debris piles.

2. This argument is only marginally less weird:

• FEMA don’t know when the eutectic reactions took place.
• Therefore, the reactions took place while the buildings stood.

It’s a patent non sequitur, as I’m sure you can appreciate.

3. This is something of a petitio principii. Whether or not the observation of the spheres serves as evidence of extreme temperatures is a crux point at issue.

4. Grizzly Bear has already addressed this point, but I shall quote him/her for the sake of completeness: “teel doesn't need to be heated excessively to cause creeping (sagging of the beams). It even happens without heat, although under typical circumstances it is expected to progress over a number of years. Heating up the steel to the point of losing 50% of its integrity while carrying a load speeds it up greatly.”

5. Oddly, your argument contains a single premise, and that premise is a conditional.

• If P, then Q.
• Therefore Q.

Nothing follows from a lone conditional.

 

[Par]

I realise, as DGM kindly points out, that this issue is likely academic, but for the sake of proficient argument:

What are you reasons why the eutectic reactions did not occur prior to collapse?

I am not making claims as to when the reactions took place. Thus, it is not my responsibility to adduce evidence for the same.

 

[phunk]

Regarding point 5, there was a UPS room in the location where the metal was seen flowing from the building. It was most likely lead from the batteries.


PS. Before someone asks, UPS as in uninterruptable power supply, not the shipping company.

 

[bio]

Originally Posted by thewholesoul
...what your really saying is that a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."...the first ever eutectic reactons observed in a building fire.

For this point to be in any way significant, you would need to point out why that observation is anomalous in a situation in which comparable buildings burned, those buildings collapsed and fires burned for weeks underneath the debris.

I do not claim that the content of the building was altered by the collapse, but the way in which that content burned certainly was.

Can you please describe how a fire could burn under debris of the WTC. How could the debris heat up, causing the eutectic reactions.
Please give a scientific validation of your thesis.

 

[phunk]

Well, the debris pile was full of the flamible contents of the buildings, which were on fire when they fell...

 

[Drs_Res]

Not to mention automobiles in the underground parking structure.

 

[DGM]

Can you please describe how a fire could burn under debris of the WTC. How could the debris heat up, causing the eutectic reactions.
Please give a scientific validation of your thesis.

Tell you what, I will if you explain to us what a eutectic reaction is and why you think it requires high temperatures. Deal?

 

[Par]

give me an example of a skyscraper been brought down by fire.

It’s important to bear in mind that World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 did not collapse due to fire alone. They also suffered high-speed impacts from commercial airliners; World Trade Center 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of World Trade Center 1.

 

[Par]

Can you please describe how a fire could burn under debris of the WTC. How could the debris heat up, causing the eutectic reactions. Please give a scientific validation of your thesis.

I am not making claims as to when the reactions took place. Thus, it is not my responsibility to adduce evidence for the same.

 

[bio]

I am not making claims as to when the reactions took place. Thus, it is not my responsibility to adduce evidence for the same.

thewholesoul has a suggestion (and some evidences), which you rejected. How can you reject, when you have no suggestion by yourself?