Debate! What debate?

[~enigma~]

Enigma:

Pay attention! I have answered Chainsaw's question in post # 529.

Now it's up to CS to confirm it

Didn't see that. Yes it is up to Chainsaw the crazy man to confirm it and I can tell you that I still have my doubts.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Trust me, its him.

Crazy's off-line for a few hours, so will probably reply on his next visit. It looks like Apollo20's response is a snippet from Crazy's email, though (the weird spacing).

I can't pretend to be able to do the math/science here, but it sounds to me like a bunch of people who probably agree for the most part in a lot of areas, but who are trying to get to that illusive absolute truth that scientists always look for.

(That's not worded real brilliantly, but I think the gist is understandable.)

I'm just reading and enjoying, frankly. Ultimately, whether Apollo20 is Dr. Greening isn't as important as the interesting discussions.

 

[~enigma~]

Trust me, its him.

If it is, he has the beginnings of senile dementia...why did he call me out in his "list" considering i have not even mentioned the NIST in this thread and in no case am I one of the heavy posters of science in this forum. Sorry but this is 28th Kingdom or at worst it is another pdoh sock. Wasn't there a thread here recently mentioning the troubles Greening was having registering here? We all question lots of things but when someone comes here and claims to be Dr. Greening although they are slinging theories opposite to what he is know to have said, we believe his story? Sorry but I am not going for this circular CT ride

 

[OMGturt1es]

can someone please post the citations for the spheres of iron again? i'd go and look myself, but as i don't recall exactly where-- or if-- they were posted, it would take some time.

 

[T.A.M.]

Apollo:

Spherical Iron particles = possible Molten iron...ok, I can buy it, others with physical science background here seem to agree. Many things can cause "molten Iron".

How do you think/Hypothesize that molten iron came to be in the rubble/dust of collapse.

In other words, do you feel it is evidence of Thermite, evidence of explosives, or do you think the collapse itself could have caused the spherical iron, or pehaps the cutting via torches afterward (leaving out the zinc factor for the time being)?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Regarding R. Mackey's call for toning it down, I agree. I think that we are often calling for a rich scientific debate here, but rarely get one. So if this is possible, than I for one will only be asking related questions, and will leave all verbal jabs and pokes at the door.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

Boloboffin..Yes there was molten metal for sure. You can see it on a 60 minutes video that used to be linked at http://terrorize.dk/911/.

Since I don't want to sit through a 60 minute video, is it the one that shows a claw picking up a chunk of red-hot (not molen) metal?

The fires in the basement melted the hubcaps off of the cars.

Hubcaps are not made from steel, usually aluminum which melts at far lower temps. And I've seen plenty of car fires, nothing more than the materials in the car and the supply of gasoline is needed to make quite an impressive fire.

 

[WildCat]

Didn't see that. Yes it is up to Chainsaw the crazy man to confirm it and I can tell you that I still have my doubts.

Chainsaw PM'd the correct answer to me, and it is the correct answer.

 

[T.A.M.]

ok, so we are confirmed then that Apollo20 is Dr. Greening.

TAM

 

[David Wong]

If it's Greening, then he should be ashamed of the way he's behaved here.

 

[WildCat]

Apollo:

Spherical Iron particles = possible Molten iron...ok, I can buy it, others with physical science background here seem to agree. Many things can cause "molten Iron".

Hit a chunk of concrete with a hammer and sparks fly. A spark is a tiny bit of molten iron, correct? I'd imagine there was quite a considerable amount of sparks generated through friction from the collapse of the towers, but I'm no scientist.

 

[~enigma~]

Chainsaw PM'd the correct answer to me, and it is the correct answer.

As well as he did me and it is 2/3rds of the correct answer. Anyway, what happened to the recent troubles Dr. Greening was having when he tried to register before? Does MikeW have the email from his website and is Apollo's the same? Did he register as Frank Greening as per policy? I also would like him to explain why he used my name in his "hit" list and why it is extremely similar to pdoh's list. I still believe he is 28th kingdom but I would really like to hear him say condone

 

[uk_dave]

Well if he is Dr Greening, then it is a shame he has chosen to debate this way.

I can hear it now...

Truther: The towers were CD!!!!1111!!!!

Critical Thinker: No. The progressive collapse was due to impact damage and fire ....

Truther: Prove it!!111!!!

Critical Thinker: Well there are several papers on the subject. There's the NIST report and.....

Truther: Government shills!!!1111!!!!1

Critical Thinker: ....and Dr Greening has produced....

Truther: Ha!!!111!! Greening thinks the NIST report is full of holes!!11!! You can't even get two reports which agree!!!111!!!!!1 Ha!!111! You NISTIAN!!!!!1111!!!11eleventy

Critical Thinker: Bugger

 

[Kent1]

Since I don't want to sit through a 60 minute video, is it the one that shows a claw picking up a chunk of red-hot (not molen) metal?


Hubcaps are not made from steel, usually aluminum which melts at far lower temps. And I've seen plenty of car fires, nothing more than the materials in the car and the supply of gasoline is needed to make quite an impressive fire.

No the 60 minutes video is from the Sunday news show called "60 minutes" Its not a 60 minute long video, if that makes sense to you. It just shows the melted hubcaps and a tour through the WTC basement. Yes I agree aluminum melts at around 660C it was aluminum. But I suspect some CT'ers might believe even that should be "too hot" for the fire deep in the basement.
There is another video which I haven't seen. Hope soon, I've been slacking. This is the video were Mark Loizeaux claims to have molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators.

Molten metal claims aren't really that uncommon in fires. Although they usually tend just to be oxidized steel.

 

[westprog]

Burden of proof

Does it require a Physicist to debunk the concept of controlled demolition?

Really?

Does it take an engineer?

The sheer impossibility of such an operation, and the absurd impracticality of such a plan, and the further impossibility of covering it up don't require pages of complex equations. It only takes a basic knowledge of the evidence.

The "official explanation" is in fact the simplest cause and effect chain. It incoporates all the evidence that is apparent and known. Thousands of people saw the impacts of the planes on the towers, and saw the fires - live, and live on TV. Thus for most people, the explanation for the collapses is the impact.

The CT view is that this is impossible. Now, clearly it's the CT viewpoint that requires the in depth analysis. Occam tells us that we have the explanation for the WTC collapse. In order to believe differently, we need a detailed explanation of why what we saw with our own eyes is wrong.

So it should be the CT analysis which goes into deep physical analysis. Instead it's the likes of the NIST report, which tells us, basically, that what we saw happen was in fact physically possible. Which we tended to assume anyway.

Of course, it's possible to debunk much of CT thinking with secondary school physics. The Judy Wood "fall one floor and stop" theory, the Griffin "topple sideways like a tree" theory, are obviously nonsense. But there are other anomalies, like the molten iron particles, which can't be easily explained. BUT - it isn't necessary to explain every tiny event in the WTC. If it could have been caused by the impact, fire and collapse, then that is what we should assume caused it. We should only entertain other explanations if they are required. If physical evidence is irrefutably shown to be incompatible with what we all saw, then it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, we can ignore it.

This tends not to be the JREF approach. On a thread such as this, an "anomaly" is pointed out. An assertion is made, without any evidence, that the existence of this "anomaly" is incompatible with the "official" story. It's a perfectly reasonable answer to demand that evidence is given to show that the effect could not be produced by the enormous forces involved in the impacts and collapses, and secondly, to provide an alternative explanation as to how they came about. There is no need to explain the effects in detail. However, since the CT's are totally unable to provide such explanations, there is a tendency for the many experts on JREF to fill in the gap.

The danger with this is that occasionally, it isn't possible to provide a full explanation of every individual phenomonen that is entirely convincing. This should do nothing to cast doubt on the simplest story. An unexplained event is simply an unexplained event. They happen all the time. The only way such an event will cast doubt on a particular version is when an explanation is found, which is incompatible with that version, but which fits with another version. It is also necessary that all the other evidence fits with the new version.

Thus JREF is often arguing on the fringes, giving an occasional impression of weakness, when in fact the standard explanation remains ever more solid. Taking the evidence as a whole, we have a vast array of facts which point in one direction, and a small number of meaningless unexplained trivialities. While it might be interesting and fun to explain some of these away, it's by no means necessary. The burden of proof has always rested with the CT explanations. They simply haven't chosen to take it on.

 

[Belz...]

Finally, I have to remark that the level of discourse in this thread is highly disappointing. There is a perfectly reasonable scientific discussion hidden here, but the signal-to-noise is pretty low. And some of that is JREF regulars. I ask you all to lower the level of antagonism here, or find another thread if you cannot.

Well, considering my lack of scientific expertise, I'll limit my contributions, here.

I will, however, call Apollo on it if he trots out the "cult-JREF" argument again. As Wong said, he set the tone in the OP.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

TAM: Spherical iron is my main evidence for molten iron

KENT1: Plastics burning is a very important factor

Chainsaw: About the zinc - yes indeed!

My straw berries and

Black Raspberries come in at the same time, and I like a Bowl of them in the morning with a little lite cream.

I thought it was you Frank, I just wanted to make sure.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy:

Degree in English? Oh, I didn’t realize that. I enjoy discussing English literature.

We literature majors have a natural affinity to you drama majors.

But I was assuming you had some technical training and/or experience…...

Not a whit. Thanks for your reply about the iron particles. Your explanation of why the sampled particles are less likely to have been the result of cutting activities seems reasonable.

Spherical iron particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.

Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in ALL indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”

1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

I had read these papers in the past, and seeing your links made me wonder why I had missed the mention of the iron anomaly. On re-reading them the reason is clear: because it isn't an anomaly. The release of spherical iron particles is apparently an expected result of this kind of fire, which is why the researchers were hoping to use those particles as a marker to differentiate WTC dust from background dust. The researchers didn't just happen upon those particles: they looked for them because they expected them to be present.

2.3.5 Heat affected particulate and combustion products

Particles that either were formed as a consequence of high temperature or were modified by exposure to high temperature are important WTC Dust Markers for WTC Dust. Fires that were a part of the WTC Event produced combustion-modified products that traveled with other components of WTC Dust. Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

There were considerable amounts of plastics in the WTC buildings, that upon heating and liberation of volatiles produced spherical (or nearly so) carbon-rich particles with vesicles related to emission of volatiles. Figure 18 shows typical carbonaceous materials from a Background Building and Figure 19 shows porous heat affected particulate in the WTC Dust. Figure 20 shows a PLM image of porous heat affected particulate in the WTC Dust.

Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event.

Combustion-related products are significant WTC Dust Markers, particularly if seen in combination. However, it is worth noting that fly ash and partially combusted products can occur in trace concentrations in ordinary building dusts, but not in the concentrations observed in WTC Dust.

Damage Assessment. 130 Liberty Street Property. Report Date: December 2003. WTC Dust Signature Report. Composition and Morphology. P. 16

"In addition, elements such as aluminum, iron and in some cases zinc, vaporized during the conflagration and condensed on the chrysotile surface, an effect only observed in fire damaged circumstances."

Damage Assessment. 130 Liberty Street Property. WTC Dust Signature Report. Asbestos. P. 7

P. 39
The catastrophic structural collapse of the WTC Towers produced fine particulate matter including fine dusts and short fractured mineral wool fibers. The U.S. EPA reported (U.S. EPA, 2002) that the WTC Dust displays calcium sulfate (gypsum) and calcium carbonate (calcite) as major components of the fine dust fraction, indicating that very finely crushed building materials are significant components of WTC Dust. The conflagration reduced existing materials into spherical metal particles, spherical and vesicular silicates, and vesicular carbonaceous particles. These dust and heat-processed constituents are rarely, if ever, found together in “typical” indoor dusts. While gypsum is commonly part of drywall and plaster, it has a dramatically different shape and size than the gypsum common to the WTC Dust.

P. 40
In the WTC Event, the intense heat and subsequent burning of debris resulted in the emission of particles whose morphology (characteristic shape) was influenced by the heat – spherical or vesicular. Figure 4-4 shows a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting and/or vaporization of iron building or content components. Figure 4-5 shows a vesicular carbon particle resulting from the heating of plastic. Figure 4-6 shows a lead particle.

130 Liberty Street Property Damage Claim volume II section 4

It would be interesting to know why such particles would be expected to form and be released in such a fire, and what building components they are most likely to come from.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

We literature majors have a natural affinity to you drama majors.

Not a whit. Thanks for your reply about the iron particles. Your explanation of why the sampled particles are less likely to have been the result of cutting activities seems reasonable.




I had read these papers in the past, and seeing your links made me wonder why I had missed the mention of the iron anomaly. On re-reading them the reason is clear: because it isn't an anomaly. The release of spherical iron particles is apparently an expected result of this kind of fire, which is why the researchers were hoping to use those particles as a marker to differentiate WTC dust from background dust. The researchers didn't just happen upon those particles: they looked for them because they expected them to be present.

It would be interesting to know why such particles would be expected to form and be released in such a fire, and what building components they are most likely to come from.

Because they are expected to form in intense fires where iron can be molten, like when aluminum burns or in a jet burner effect both mostly discounted by NIST.
Read the date of the papers, and you will see that most were written during the time the earliest theory's hold sway.

 

[humingbrd]

If it's Greening, then he should be ashamed of the way he's behaved here.

I agree with DW. Dr. Greening may be a crackerjack materials scientist, and he may have valid critiques about the tone of discussion in this section of JREF. But his manner of communicating those critiques is contemptible.

I believe that dogs are stupid animals. To prove my point (scientifically), whenever my neighbor is away I throw rocks at the two dogs in his backyard. I poke them with a long stick. I laugh at them and call them stupid. All they can do is bark. You should see those stupid dogs bark! Woohoo, what fun!

That's my proof that dogs are stupid using the Greening method.