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

[Blender Head]

Hey Red, what do you think of the post by Mackey that you called 'helpful'? Could you address it?

Thanks!

 

[sdemetri]

Welcome to the site, sdemetri

Thanks, glad to be here.

So subterranean fires at Centralia are irrelevant to understanding what happened in the subterranean pile, but large structural fires are very relevant? Is that your claim?

Yes. These are two very different phenomenon, having different causes, and different fuels.

“You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Source: nist factsheets/faqs_8_2006 (August 2006)”

Curious that you are simply reciting one of Jones’ own claims that concerned an alleged plume of smoke from the upper stories of the WTC long before the collapse. What exactly does this have to do with what was happening in the pile weeks or months later?

NIST establishes by this that an unusual flame was seen emitting a plume of white smoke. Jones also notes what NIST said. NIST called it unusual and by its description describes in very clear terms, though does not admit, how a thermate reaction also looks. NIST establishes a possibility that what was seen was a thermate reaction. If a possible thermate reaction was seen burning before the complete pulverization of the buildings, it is highly plausible unreacted thermate survived the fall and existed in the pile. Again, the lack of resistance shown to the building falling apart is very easily explained by this type of reaction "cutting up" the building. No structural integrity equals no resistance.

 

[pomeroo]

It is pretty easy to take stills from the video of the North Tower, establish a point on the communications tower and on the roof line and plot a curve of their acceleration into the rest of the building, a presumably intact building below the damage zone. The pixels in the still frames make for a very accurate way to measure the drop as they can be converted to feet relatively easily. As the frames of video are captured at regular intervals, the drop verses time makes for a very accurate curve.

The North Tower communications tower and roof line accelerated into the lower building. There is no deceleration. Why? Because the building is disintegrating out from under the upper block. There was no deceleration, the block accelerated through what was below it. How else can that lack of resistance be explained except by removing what would cause resistance from below. And that is consistent with account after account of firefighters hearing and seeing large explosions just prior to the upper block falling. With nothing to slow the fall of the upper block, that mass of material accelerated into the rest of the building. At no point is there deceleration witnessed in what is available in the mechanical evidence before the entire collapse becomes obscured in a semi-gaseous cloud of pulverized concrete and office materials.

And your imaginary conspiracy, of course, just happened to plant its tons of explosives on the impact floors?

 

[RedIbis]

Hey Red, what do you think of the post by Mackey that you called 'helpful'? Could you address it?

Thanks!

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The point of the paper, at least one point, is to highlight the fact that neither Cahill nor EPA could explain to spikes in VOC. They were atypical. They were not expected in very large structural fires, another very unexpected occurrance in what were very unexpected collapses. The evidence for high temperatures in volatized metals is completely unexpected and in need of explanation. As Cahill said, "they should not have been there..." and he and apparently no one else has any explanation for it. Highly energetic nanocomposites provide an explanation that is very consistent with many other aspects of the evidence. It plausibly explains USGS's finding of molybdenum microspheres, RJ Lee's findings of volatized lead, and aluminosilicates, Worcester Polytech's findings of volatized steel. The typical large structure fire does not explain these phenomena.

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

Dr. Frank Greening came up with a potential explanation for the aluminosilicates:

The formation of iron-rich microspheres below the m.p. of pure iron at ~ 1537 deg C is a complex process but is possible in an environment containing HCl/Cl2 and SO2/SO3 in the presence of O2 and H2O. Iron is transported as a volatile di or tri-chloride. FeCl2 has a m.p. of 677 deg C and allows "active" corrosion to occur with iron wastage rates as high as 100 g/m^2 per hour. The iron chloride is relatively unstable and decomposes but the iron does not wind up as a pure iron microsphere. As the very least it will be oxide (probably Fe3O4) coated and alloyed with other metals such as Al. Fly ash usually contains mullite, Al6Si2O13. This readily combines with iron oxide at ~ 1000 deg C to form an iron-rich aluminosilicate microsphere on cooling. Other elements such as K and Ca are also readily incorporated into these melts. This is the chemistry of CLAY minerals! As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.

Regarding the Worchester Polytechnic findings: Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson's observed eutectic reactions. Not only does that not indicate thermite, it contradicts it; thermite would have destroyed eutectic mix.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards. How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did. On top of that, how many large structures collapsed? How many have had jets ram them, and leave behind the material present airliners? And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual? A comparison against other structures would presume that the contents were similar, and that's not a given. How many other structures would have the enterprise-class banks of uninterruptible power supplies, like the South tower did on the 82nd floor? How many large structures were built over electric substations, like WTC 7?

The point is, thermite (let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one) is simply not necessary to explain any of the findings you cite. And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced. Jones's and Ryan's findings do not change that fact, they do not change the fact that molybdenum is an expected component of steel, that eutectic reactions are contraindicatory of thermite, and that the release of volatile compounds such as aromatics does not require thermite at all. Their paper is nothing more than an attempt to shoehorn in an explanation where none is needed.

 

[RedIbis]

Could you provide information on the "levels ... recorded"? I thought in one of these discussions it was said that the topic had hardly been studied anywhere. That would mean that your implied criticism, above, isn't valid.

Instead of hoping it's invalid, why don't you click any of the links provided. Better yet, why not read the article and see for yourself that the data and tables come from the EPA.

 

[Blender Head]

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

I meant with more than just handwaving.

 

[lapman]

EdMondo, what affect would the compression of the flammable material in the debris pile have on both heat release and the concentration of VOC released?

 

[funk de fino]

Both.

Explosives and Thermite?

Which floor had explosives and which floors had thermite?

When was it placed and by whom?

 

[sdemetri]

much handwaving, ElMondo...

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read the paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else explain.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well.

 

[DavidJames]

...a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..."

Well there you go. Thanks for using those quotes. It removes all doubt that you cherry pick evidence, or worse, are not above lying to push your agenda.

 

[sdemetri]

much handwaving, ElMondo...

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read Ryan's paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else have explained.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well. Careful you don't rest your argument on something that isn't provable. If someone DID have access to place incendiaries or explosives by means you are not aware of, your argument that they could not have been used because they could not have been placed falls completely apart. In other words, for you to say that is not airtight.

 

[lapman]

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

Thank you for finally proving that you have zero idea of what you're talking about. If you had done anything close to research, you would have known that the firemen were at the 78th floor when they made that statement. That is 2 floors below the main crash site and fire. IIRC, fire generally does not travel down a building.

:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

How many of the other large structural fires involved most of the flammable material being compressed by several hundred thousand tons of debris?

 

[The Big Dog]

Sdemetri

You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, in a pattern that in any way resembles the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

I know you are new around here, and you really, really admire Jones' work, but please do not come around here repeating Truther lies.

That two small pockets quote has been discussed and rebutted repeatedly on this site. Moreover, any suggestion that what was happening on 78 indicates what was happening above that floor is simply baseless. "The fires were not that large." Cripes, that is indefensible.

I suggest that you do some homework, first, and stick closely to the subject, which as I recall is Jones' and wateboy's second bs vanity article.

Plus I am waiting for your substantive response to Mangoose.

 

[sdemetri]

much handwaving, ElMondo...

Molybdenum is a component of structural steel, the fact that microspheres of such existed have many explanations besides thermite. Welding, for example.

The lead can have very mundane origins. Uninterruptible power supply batteries, for example.

True, but also evidence of extreme temperatures, which are shown in other ways.

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And the argument about a "typical large structure fire" is a red herring. That doesn't matter considering that the World Trade Center events are unique in many regards.

Oh, but it does matter, because that is what Cahill found unusual about his data. The data was not typical of a large structural fire.

How many large structures have had fires that large? Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size of conflageration that the Twin Towers did.

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

And to get to the heart of the argument: How do we know that the VOC emissions are indeed unusual?

We know because Cahill and EPA found the data THEY collected unusual. I am wondering if you have even read Ryan's paper yourself.

(let's call a spade a spade and stop trying to disguise thermite as "highly energetic nanoparticles". That fools no one)

I am not disquising anything, or trying to fool anyone. Nanocomposites are a working hypothesis. They are not proved. But there is possible evidence they were used, in the visual evidence, in possible physical evidence, in the evidence of extreme temperatures. They better explain the findings Cahill and EPA reported, which neither they themselves, nor anyone else have explained.

And again, it's very, very unlikely as a cause given that there was practically zero opportunity for it to be emplaced.

I am not arguing how they got there if they were used, only that they can explain as yet unexplained phenomena. And they do that very well. Careful you don't rest your argument on something that isn't provable. If someone DID have access to place incendiaries or explosives by means you are not aware of, your argument that they could not have been used because they could not have been placed falls completely apart. In other words, for you to say that is not airtight. It is pure speculation.

 

[pomeroo]

{snip-drivel}

You mean the conflagration MIT's Eagar said was "not unusual." You mean the conflagration hundreds of firefighters went up into the buildings to fight, one of them, a chief saying, "two small pockets... two lines to take it down..." The fires were not that large, and other large structure fires the EPA has monitored have not shown the same VOC releases that these did, or in patterns that resemble the releases recorded here. You haven't made much of an argument.

How quickly our new pseudoscientist reveals himself as yet another garden-variety twoofer. No, you certainly haven't made much of an argument:

(from debunking911.com)

Orio Palmer
Deputy Chief
Battalion 7
Memorial Service was held
on October 13, 2001​

The fireman's quote saying all that was needed was two fire hoses to put out the fires is taken out of context by conspiracy theorists. They even bring the dead fireman's wife into the picture. From a well known conspiracy theory site...

“Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Palmer called for a pair of engine companies to fight the fires. The fact that veteran firefighters showed no sign of fear or panic, and had a coherent plan for fighting the fire, contradicts the official explanation of the collapses that the fires were so hot and extensive that they weakened the steel structure. “​

Firefighter's quotes are routinely taken out of context by 9/11 conspiracy sites. The conspiracy theorists use the quote above to suggest the fire was never large enough to cause the steel to melt. Let's forget that the NIST never said the steel needed to melt for a moment. But the steel did have to have enough fire to expand and weaken the steel. They point to the fireman saying "We should be able to knock it down with two lines" as in two fire hoses. Sounds small, doesn't it? But let's examine the quote further...
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Recorded audio of the actual event..
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio9.html
Now look at this...
USA Today
South tower is WTC 2.

The glaringly obvious logical problems with using Orio Palmers quote are:

• Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.
• It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.
• The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
• If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?
• If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?
• If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?
• Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?
• Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

This quote was obviously chosen to give the reader the impression that there were only small fires throughout the event. But what is telling is the characterization of the quote. The writer says it “contradicts the official explanation”. It would actually confirm the NIST report which says the trusses heated, expanded then cooled and contracted as the fires moved on. It was the contracting trusses which pulled the columns inward causing the collapse. Once again, conspiracy theorists debunk themselves.
Below is a photo gallery which shows the progression of fire, bowing of perimeter columns and sagging trusses. It also shows why there was little fire on the 78th floor.
Photo Gallery of fire in chronological order: Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3

More fire photos: General Fire Gallery
​

 

[Dave Rogers]

The "retardation" of the upper block looks alot to me like "deceleration" of which we see none. I was trained as a chemist, not an engineer. It seems this hypothesis, crush up/ crush down, has been forwarded to try to explain progressive collapse, but acceleration occurs with a lack of resistance. Opposing forces require some resistance; one is either stronger than the other, or they perfectly cancel out. The mass of the upper block was not so great as to provide an overriding force that would destroy the material below it before it arrives, therefore accelerating through it. That makes no sense to me...

If your last sentence refers to the paragraph preceding it, I agree; your argument makes no sense whatsoever. I can't even divine from it what you're trying to say. It's been shown ad nauseam through calculations that the dynamic loading from the upper block was greater than the ultimate structural strength of the support columns in the lower block. Progressive collapse isn't dependent on a crush down / crush up model, but simply on the assumption that the crushed material doesn't magically vanish in mid-collapse. As for your statement "acceleration occurs with a lack of resistance", it seems to me to show a misunderstanding of basic Newtonian mechanics. If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple.

You said the collapse was chaotic. The repeated symmetry seen in many stills and video does not seem at all chaotic. Corner assemblies remain intact while a straight, not chaotic, destruction front blows out windows, from one corner to the other simultaneously, floor by floor. It is very regular, very symetrical. There is symetry in the plumes of debris at collapse initiation, while the upper mass accelerates down. The symetry is very close to the same for both buildings, although each building had unique damage.

You must be either watching a different series of videos than the ones present in reality, or using a different definition of symmetry. Both collapses were characterised by a measurable tilt of the upper block. That alone destroys symmetry, and will smear out the floor-on-floor impacts, hence smoothing out any variations in the effective forces due to structural resistance and momentum transfer. The tilt of WTC2 was about three times that of WTC1, and a huge chunk of WTC2 was observed falling on WTC3 when nothing of similar size was seen falling to the other sides.

I think what you're seeing is what you've chosen to see, and there's no point arguing about that because you'll never admit that the videos and pictures don't show what you want to believe they show. To anyone viewing them objectively, the two collapses are clearly not symmetrical, visibly different, and obviously highly chaotic events.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Worcester also said what they found was entirely surprising. And what they found was evaporated steel, holes in flanges thinning down to sharp edges. Completely unexpected and unexplained, in spite of the eutectic reactions they also found evidence of. Careful you don't try to explain for them what they found.

And yet this is exactly what the truth movement is guilty of. The thinning of the steel flanges is absolutely impossible to explain as an effect of steel experiencing temperatures above its melting point; the most basic understanding of the phases of matter tells us that. The corrosion of steel in the WTC7 rubble pile has been explained as due to eutectic melting in a corrosive atmosphere, at temperatures attainable in a smouldering fire but far too low to have arisen from a thermite reaction. The truth movement starts from the assumption that any anomaly proves an inside job, then tries to construct a line of reasoning from one to the other. In this case, as in every other, that line simply doesn't exist.

Dave

 

[R.Mackey]

R Mackey, regarding an earlier post …

In fact, the un-extinguishable fires have NOT been adequately explained. Not in any study by NIST, FEMA, USGS, RJ Lee, Worcester Polytech, any other study, that I am aware of, that has been officially commissioned or carried out. NIST denies that there even were fires.

NIST denies that there were fires?

Either source this, or I'm just going to come right out and call you a liar. This is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. Not a good way to begin here.

Comparing the WTC fires to the Centralia underground fire is completely irrelevant as the two have nothing in common, or any connections whatsoever. That Centralia took place doesn’t explain, adequately or not, what generated the WTC fires, or sustained them. The Centralia fire has a natural fuel source, the WTC fires had an undetermined fuel source.

The WTC fires do not have an undetermined fuel source. It was packed with combustibles. Conservation of mass guarantees those combustibles were still there after collapse. The DELTA group, linked previously, estimated that 85% of the combustibles remained after collapse.

The best Mr. Ryan and company can hope to do is speculate about an additional fuel source. But whatever signal they hope to find is a discrepancy between the expected fire, based on ordinary office materials, cars, construction materials, etc.; and the actual fire performance. They hardly treat the baseline fire at all, only -- like you -- claiming it is "unexplained." Stuff and nonsense.

It is true that Centralia differs in some ways, as do most historical examples of persistent low-level fires. That's because WTC basements packed with burning materials are also rare. The fuel in Centralia is coal, not wood and synthetics, but these have comparable energy densities. The oxygen environment is also similar. In contrast, "ordinary structure fires" have the exact same materials, but the ventilation story isn't the same at all. This is quite significant when considering the chemical species in the plume.

That the official studies have not addressed the fires at the WTC piles is, in fact, very relevant to the statement by Ryan that they “have not been adequately explained…” If they have been adequately explained, cite your documentation. A casual reference to a known underground fire proves absolutely nothing.

I gave two references in my previous post. One includes Dr. Cahill, whom Mr. Ryan has cherry-picked.

This paper assumes there is much plastic, polyvinyl chloride, computer housings, office materials in the rubble. It is the release of particulate matter, and the documentation that shows typical release patterns of PM in large structural fires, as well as the concentrations of specific compounds that EPA and Cahill reported, that are not adequately explained by what is known about large structural fires.

Again, this is because the fire in question is a poor match to a large structural fire. When was the last time a large structure burned for months?

The paper states: “The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of rapid combustion of typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials, buried with the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates, violent, shortlived, and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOC’s seen on those dates.”

Emphasis added. Why would they "somehow ignite on specific dates?" Deliberate? Really, really slow fuses?

And I'm not impressed. There are any number of reasons why these events could occur. Again, see Dr. Cahill's work. Just because the benzene etc. signal is spiky doesn't mean the benzene production is similarly spiky. There are many reasons why pockets of volatiles would be released in surges.

Furthermore, if there are such radically violent processes taking place at random intervals, where's the other evidence? Have you calculated the heat output of your supposed events? Why was this not seen?

Cahill attempts to discuss the aberrant findings, but with hypotheses that don’t seem very likely. Many of the aberrant findings, “very fine aerosols typical of combustion temperatures far higher than [expected in] the WTC collapses piles… some elements abundantly and others hardly at all, despite similar abundances in the collapse dust…organic species in the very fine mode that would not survive high temperatures…” which organic species included sulphur and sulphur-based compounds and fine particles of chemically bound silicon, in their abundance are not easily explained by what is typical of large structural fires. Cahill attempted to ditch the “high temperature” explanation in favor of volatized metals due to high concentrations of chlorine, not a likely scenario. High temperatures do easily explain volatized metals, and is corroborated by the USGS, RJ Lee, and Worcester Polytech findings of extreme temperatures.

You'll pardon me if I don't find compelling your claim that Dr. Cahill's hypotheses "don't seem likely."

Regarding the RJ Lee report, as we've discussed here, his samples were taken many months afterward, after the cleanup process was complete. His evidence of extremely high temperatures is consistent with the cutting torches used in salvage operations. You cannot blame his findings on the fire.

They likewise found evidence of extreme temperatures and volatized metals. Sulphur and sulphur-based compounds, silicon, and other volatized metals are consistent with nanocomposite energetic materials, but not easily explained in their concentrations and release patterns by typical structural fires. Cahill said in relation to some of the PM, “these particles simply should not be there…”

Actually, all of those are easily explained by typical structure fires, with possible exception of a few metallic species with high melting points. Regarding the metallic species, as I linked before, Lioy et al. demonstrate that their concentrations are not unusual immediately after collapse. The other readings you have are from long after the collapse, and as such, are not linked to any of the fires.

Even were this not the case, inventing a magical, never-before-seen, sabotage device that leaves no other indications of its existence is not the answer. This is inflation in action, a gross affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

You said, “The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." “

NIST comments on the white clouds as “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out." Source: NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Equivocation fallacy. That's ONE CLOUD. So where's this unusual flame in the other tower? In structurally significant locations in either tower?

And are you honestly suggesting that some freakish nano-thermite-matrix device is the only explanation for this lone event?

So, not “of course, gypsum or concrete…” white smoke… consistent with a thermite/thermate incendiary device. Your dismissal of what NIST calls “white smoke” generated by an “unusual” and “bright flame,” as gypsum or concrete is unsubstantiated. Thermate burns with a very bright flame and gives off a plume of white smoke consisting of aluminum oxide, which is consistent with the flame and white plume NIST comments on.

Lots of things burn with a very bright flame, and there are sources of white dust AND smoke AND vapor present in the thousands of tons. This is yet another spectacular affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

Ryan doesn’t make a case for “persistent thermite reactions.” The very quick, energetic exothermic reaction is over very rapidly. In the event an excess was used to sever connections in the perimeter and core columns, which is entirely consistent with the lack of resistance to the collapse once it initiated, it is highly plausible pockets of un-ignited thermite/thermate existed in the pile. At any rate, there is sufficient cause to investigate incendiaries.

Mr. Ryan attempts to make the case for thermite reactions taking place months after collapse. Seems pretty persistent to me.

Your attempt to distract to the standard Truth Movement drivel about "lack of resistance" etc. is noted. We've also discussed the collapse initiation and completion to death, and there are no discrepancies. You argue here from another false premise, namely that the collapse is also not explained. It is.

None of you here have made any case whatsoever against conducting an investigation into that possibility. The most you have done in this thread is thumping of chests, patting each other on the back, and name calling, with poor or no substantiation to your arguments.

None of us have even attempted to prevent such an investigation. Instead, we are simply recognizing that Mr. Ryan's comments are nonsense. As to your claims that our arguments are unsubstantiated, I count two lies and two gross logical errors among your other transgressions in this post alone, so I flatly reject your analysis of the debate.

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation. Especially in light of the EPA’s failure to warn workers and others of the environmental dangers to working in the area at the time, and in light of the sicknesses and deaths that are occurring in first responders.

Yes, it is a large amount, which is why Dr. Cahill remarked upon it in the first place. But once you understand the complex geometry of the shifting Pile, the effects of weather etc. on the plume, and the much higher than normal benzene production due to the largely anaerobic combustion taking place, the mystery disappears.

Idiotic speculation about mysterious incendiaries -- freaking enormous ones, ones that were apparently unnecessary to trigger the collapse, is madness. Tell me, did They load the Towers with what, twice the demo they really needed, and half of it failed? Or are the ratios worse? I'd laugh at you for proposing this in a post here. The fact that you've duped another flaky on-line journal into printing it elevates this episode beyond all known parody.

 

[R.Mackey]

I did address it. I found it helpful. His theory that the fuel for the spikes was contained in the basements, essentially office contents, does not account for the levels recorded, nor does it account for the fact that the greatest spike occurred long after this material would have been removed.

Actually, it does. Again, see the DELTA group papers.

And regarding the last point, how does Mr. Ryan's hypothesis account for the greatest spike occuring long afterward? Surely there's no huge stockpile of nanononsense detonating after it was removed? How does that work??