Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal
- Thread starter RedIbis
- Start date
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Gee, ya think old Red is regreting his posting this thread in the first place?
Still waiting for a response to Mackey's invitation.
Still waiting for a response to Mackey's invitation.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
You'll note also that the paper speaks of "toxic spikes" in february of 2002.
ETA: I just thought of something. Maybe it was nanothermite fallout!
Or leftover exhaust from Santa's sled the month before?
mrbaracuda
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,797
Thank you Mangoose! Very nice post. 
Nice work on that Fox 5 news footage.
Typical Jones.
I'm coming here less and less. I think the truth movement is falling apart.
I don't see Truthers for 9/11 having much more weight than Lumberjacks for Bigfoot anymore.
Jones, Ryan etc have so little credibility. Anything of value has to some from an outside source.
Typical Jones.
I'm coming here less and less. I think the truth movement is falling apart.
I don't see Truthers for 9/11 having much more weight than Lumberjacks for Bigfoot anymore.
Jones, Ryan etc have so little credibility. Anything of value has to some from an outside source.
mrbaracuda
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 3,797
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
1. They had to go back and get instructionsWhere did Red, roundhead, and TheLoneBedouin go?
2. Rob's computers suffered idiocy overload and tripped out.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
OK, thanks for that. I am not the tiniest bit scientific, but was interested in moving the discussion on a little.
Oh, yes, of course, absolutely. I just wanted to clarify that the authors were indeed making a link between the presence of various volatile aromatics and other organic compounds with thermite. A light reading of the paper could cause one to just breeze by that fact.
I certainly agree with your sentiment in moving the conversation along a bit. Sometimes these threads can get hung up on the most minute points. I often end up contributing to that myself at times.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And when do you intend to do that?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. I think he views people here as lost souls lacking the insight and advanced perceptions of those like himself. Responses here roll off him like water off a ducks back only with less of an impact.
If it comes, it will be a one or two line dismissive comment, without substance. Either that or a question.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Jones et al paid $3,000 to have it published.
Looks like they have very lax standards at the very least.
Doesn't look like it.
Yes, $3,000.
Yes, 9/11 was not an inside job. It was in fact planned and executed by al Qaeda.
You're very welcome.
So... nobody's taken issue with my explanation of why the paper is nonsense? Heck, that was easy.
Also, my compliments to Mangoose for his thorough exposure of the poor sourcing found in the paper. This is par for the course. I didn't want to get into it -- instead, I focused on the reasoning itself. Even if you accept the data that Mr. Ryan uses in this paper, you still wind up with one huge assuming the consequent. But as he showed, the data is suspect as well.
I also got a huge chuckle out of the "180,000 ppm" mistake. Yes, I accept it was an honest mistake, but really, it should have been obvious. Air containing 180,000 ppm benzene would be about 34% benzene by mass, and would have approximately 30 times as much benzene as the oxygen required to combust it. The only way this can happen is if the benzene is boiled, and rather than sampling air, we are really sticking our instruments into an expanding cloud of benzene vapor. Which, by the way, is incredibly flammable, and would have a fuel-to-oxygen ratio of about 30:1. In other words, about the worst backdraft situation I've ever heard of.
So, until the error (that it was "ppb" instead of "ppm") was detected, we all should have marvelled at the hardiness of researchers willing to stand within this fearsome, enormous cloud of superheated benzene, clearly willing to don oxygen rebreathers and asbestos coveralls, not to mention brave imminent fuel-air explosions, all in the name of science. And with that said, we should remain in awe of their powers of understatement, concluding that the benzene concentration was merely "high."
Finally, the editors of The Environmentalist wrote me back already. They did not dispute my concerns at all. Their response, "write us your concerns as a new article."
This is Bentham all over again. I'm beginning to think they work on commission.
This makes me particularly angry. This isn't just Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan trying to trick people anymore -- although that is what this paper is, a trick, as Myriad explained to perfection. Now it's crossed over into the realm of scientific ethics. Not if I can help it.
Also, my compliments to Mangoose for his thorough exposure of the poor sourcing found in the paper. This is par for the course. I didn't want to get into it -- instead, I focused on the reasoning itself. Even if you accept the data that Mr. Ryan uses in this paper, you still wind up with one huge assuming the consequent. But as he showed, the data is suspect as well.
I also got a huge chuckle out of the "180,000 ppm" mistake. Yes, I accept it was an honest mistake, but really, it should have been obvious. Air containing 180,000 ppm benzene would be about 34% benzene by mass, and would have approximately 30 times as much benzene as the oxygen required to combust it. The only way this can happen is if the benzene is boiled, and rather than sampling air, we are really sticking our instruments into an expanding cloud of benzene vapor. Which, by the way, is incredibly flammable, and would have a fuel-to-oxygen ratio of about 30:1. In other words, about the worst backdraft situation I've ever heard of.
So, until the error (that it was "ppb" instead of "ppm") was detected, we all should have marvelled at the hardiness of researchers willing to stand within this fearsome, enormous cloud of superheated benzene, clearly willing to don oxygen rebreathers and asbestos coveralls, not to mention brave imminent fuel-air explosions, all in the name of science. And with that said, we should remain in awe of their powers of understatement, concluding that the benzene concentration was merely "high."
Finally, the editors of The Environmentalist wrote me back already. They did not dispute my concerns at all. Their response, "write us your concerns as a new article."
This is Bentham all over again. I'm beginning to think they work on commission.
This makes me particularly angry. This isn't just Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan trying to trick people anymore -- although that is what this paper is, a trick, as Myriad explained to perfection. Now it's crossed over into the realm of scientific ethics. Not if I can help it.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
There's one more missing link in Ryan and Jones's chain of reasoning that I don't think has been raised here. They're claiming, in effect, that brief, energetic reactions within the rubble pile resulted in an increase in the release of aromatic chemicals such as benzene. Taking the most simplistic possible view, one might reason that if heat leads to benzene liberation, more heat liberates more benzene. However, in this case we're talking about temperature spikes up to 2500ºC, and this is far above the temperatures needed for cracking benzene into short chain alkenes. One might expect, therefore, that a thermite reaction in the rubble pile would reduce, not increase, the levels of benzene emission, with a corresponding increase in methane, ethene and propene levels. Have the authors considered this, or have they just taken an over-simplistic line of reasoning and assumed it to be correct?
I'd have been very interested to hear Apollo20's opinion on this one. Do we have any more chemists around here?
Dave
I'd have been very interested to hear Apollo20's opinion on this one. Do we have any more chemists around here?
Dave
R Mackey, regarding an earlier post...
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.”
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. 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…”
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)
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.
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.
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.
BTW, concerning benzene levels:
The general equation is: micrograms/m3 = (ppbv)(12.19)(MW) / (273.15 + oC) where: micrograms/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (i.e., micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air) MW = molecular weight of the gaseous pollutant ppbv = parts per billion by volume (i.e., volume of gaseous pollutant per billion volumes of ambient air) oC = degrees Centigrade (Source: as a new commentor, not allowed to cite the source...)
MW of benzene is 78.1 g/mol
82 micrograms/m3 = ~26 ppb at 20 degrees C
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.
And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.”
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. 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…”
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)
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.
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.
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.
BTW, concerning benzene levels:
The general equation is: micrograms/m3 = (ppbv)(12.19)(MW) / (273.15 + oC) where: micrograms/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter (i.e., micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air) MW = molecular weight of the gaseous pollutant ppbv = parts per billion by volume (i.e., volume of gaseous pollutant per billion volumes of ambient air) oC = degrees Centigrade (Source: as a new commentor, not allowed to cite the source...)
MW of benzene is 78.1 g/mol
82 micrograms/m3 = ~26 ppb at 20 degrees C
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.
And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper.