Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[RedIbis]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

 

[mrbaracuda]

unusual species

Species? A German is confused.

could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure

What about the new 'WTC7'? I assume it is at GZ and thus renders you a strange person, possibly a liar.

 

[pomeroo]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

Some of us believe that the new WTC 7 opened in 2006. Where are we going wrong?


UPDATE: You beat me, mrbaracuda!

 

[WildCat]

Is this the "journal" in question?

http://www.the-environmentalist.org/

 

[~enigma~]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

Would you be so kind as to list what chemicals are in the human body. Just the elements...not compounds. That should be a simple task since you can reference wikipedia if you want.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this

Yup...they are removing themselves (at least in this paper which I have no desire to read) from the 9/11 is an inside job consfearacy.

I expect the requisite wise cracks

Put your application in for the million.

but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

After you list the chemical elements contained in a human body you should have a pretty strong indicator for your answer.

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ?

Did they tear down WTC 7 last night?

Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

Ah...you think that is why there have been delays. I suggest you do a forum search before you make another "mistake" like you did with no WTC 7 at ground zero.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

Considering what elements are in the human body AND in common construction material AND in offices, what astounding news do they make about the chemical stew at ground zero and why should I waste time reading their "un-news"?

 

[RedIbis]

Species? A German is confused.



What about the new 'WTC7'? I assume it is at GZ and thus renders you a strange person, possibly a liar.

I said in that block specifically for that reason. WTC 7 was the only bldg that collapsed outside of that block.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well according to most sources, the delay in the rebuilding is because of finacial battles over who is going to pay for it.

BTW, when is Jones et al going to publish something in a respected Journal that actually deals with topics in line with Structual Enginneer rather than internet journals and those that are totally off topic (Economics and Eniviromental)?

 

[RedIbis]

Some of us believe that the new WTC 7 opened in 2006. Where are we going wrong?


UPDATE: You beat me, mrbaracuda!

Obviously, you are going to focus on some minutia that I'll take a moment to try and clear up. I referred, perhaps hastily to Ground Zero as the block within which the WTC 1-6 stood. I'm well aware that across the street WTC 7was rebuilt.

Can we now discuss the article?

 

[Civilized Worm]

Is this the "journal" in question?

http://www.the-environmentalist.org/

No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

 

[~enigma~]

Can we now discuss the article?

If you are going to ignore my post, i guess not...

 

[~enigma~]

No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

Why can't I find either Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones through a search there?

 

[RedIbis]

If you are going to ignore my post, i guess not...

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I don't know, but their article is certainly there as RedIbis has already linked it.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.

What are we supposed to debunk? What is the claim they're making?

 

[Pardalis]

Can we now discuss the article?

Can you first respond to the mountain of evidence presented to you in this thread?

You seem to have left the conversation without addressing the evidence. Seems to me the polite thing to do would be to acknowledge it and then move on to another topic.

But I'm not hoping your character has improved.

 

[~enigma~]

No, this is: http://www.springer.com/environment/nature+conservation+-+biodiversity/journal/10669

I'm not playing your games. Did you read the article? Do you have something specific about the article you'd like to discuss? This should be like softball. I'm no chemical engineer and I won't even pretend to debate the technical aspects. I'm curious how this can be debunked by the debunkers.

What games? Are you paranoid? I said I didn't read the article and I set forth my reasons. What do Ryan and Jones bring forth that is unexpected for the chemical stew that was more than expected at ground zero? i asked you to list the chemical elements found in the human body since that would go a long way to answering your question about "other than gravity." By your refusal to "play games" you are proving to everyone here that your questions are not honorable and your intent is to preach your ridiculous theory. You are sad and pathetic...

 

[beachnut]

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

Funny, Benzene is found in Jet Fuel too, just looking at their failure of a paper. What a pathetic paper.
Oops, they said thermite, and thus the paper is another nut case crazy junk paper. But as an engineer I am just making a professional judgment. I already know Jones made up thermite and has zero evidence. Over 6 years and a few fringe people hang on for Jones et al next nut case ideas of woo.

Thermite, it proves this paper is another pile of scat. Bigfoot CTers need that pile real bad.

For RedIbis – how to debunk this paper. If they mention thermite, evidence was not found at the WTC, therefore thermite was not used – therefore the paper is trash. There was also zero evidence of explosives.

Recap: No thermite, there was no evidence found! Makes the paper junk, pure junk and a waste of time. These guys who did the paper are a few fringe guys with crazy ideas about 9/11. You need no chemical engineering expertise, or chemistry to debunk this. Just a rational, logical mind and a firm educational base from grade school.

Hint to debunking Jones: Take Jones' own references, with those references you can debunk Jones if you have a rational, logical, and sound judgment kind of mind. Simple! Try it instead of sitting around in awe of the idiot ideas expressed by these frauds.

The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have
not been adequately explained as the results of a normal
structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel.

The paper is full of junk like this! Just false/flawed/wrong from the start, to end.

 

[WildCat]

It's actually here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

The woo in this one is strong:

The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have
not been adequately explained as the results of a normal
structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely,
such fires are better explained given the presence of
chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel
and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical
suppressants.​

​

 

[~enigma~]

Oops, they said thermite

Another reason among the others that I don't want to or need to read this idiocy. So what are they claiming, that the chemical stew at ground zero wouldn't have been expected due to gravity but because thermite was used to cut columns (against gravity)? That is the biggest pile of bs I have ever heard in my life. Are Jones and Ryan in the running for idiot of the year?

 

[Pardalis]

Red Ibis' been here a whole year and he hasn't budged an iota from his position regardless of the massive amount of evidence everyone has provided for him, never once has he acknowledged one fact shown to him.

Does anybody feel this thread will be any different?