• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Farrer and Jones examined WTC steel long ago

Oystein

Penultimate Amazing
Oystein
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
18,903
Jeff Farrer said in an interview in late 2010 that, sometime around 2005/2006, he and Steven Jones studied some WTC steel. Quote starts at 3:24:

Jeff Farrer said:
Eventually, [Steven Jones] was able to get some metal samples that were from some of the steel beams from one of the towers, and we studied those, I cut up some of those steel samples and polished then to see what we would find in the steel. Some of the pieces that he acquired at the time had some corrosion, they'd obviously gone through some melting, and we thought hat these might be significant.
Click to expand...

Here:


Later on at 4:41:
Jeff Farrer said:
The study of the metal samples turned up different phases. I did obviously see the steel phase and iron oxide phases. We did find an iron sulfide phase as well as an iron silicate phase. Looking at all the phases, I came to the conclusion that in order to create these phases, we'd have to reach a minimum of about 1,100°C. So that was some preliminary work that we did with these steel samples, the steel evidence that Steve was able to get from various people. In fact, one of the samples came from Clarkson University. Some of the steel beams had been sent out to Clarkson University, or Clarkson College, and they were gonna build a monument with these and there was a lot of debris that was sent with the beams, and some of the evidence came from that debris, as well as coming directly off of the steel columns. So that's where these initial samples came from.
Click to expand...
He then goes around poking a little about why he finds all this strange and suspicious and how the phases could have been created and how hot fires get. Then continues with analytical results:
Jeff Farrer said:
We did find small amount of aluminium in some of the specimens. More significant probably was the sulfur content that we found. In fact, in one piece, I found a pore in the steel that had pure sulfur embedded in the pore, which I found was very strange. So that's when I really started looking for sulfur and finding it in more abundance in some of these phases. So then the next question of course is: How do you get the sulfur in these pieces of steel, or in the debris? And that question is unanswered. [...] I would certainly love to get an official sample of the steel that we know came from a large piece of the steel
Click to expand...

Steven Jones hints at some of these studies in his 09/2006 paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?". In it, there are dead links to more documents, but the WayBackMachine has them still:

Answers to Objections and Questions (Jul/Aug 2006) - Based primarily on talks given at the Utah Academy of Sciences (April 2006) and the American
Scholars Symposium (June 2006).
That's the infamous presentation in which the angled cuts and the photoshopped light from the hole appear. And previously molten steel... The steel specimens appear starting with page 80.

Jones's old BYU homepage



I didn't quite know what to search for here - have their steel analyses beemn discussed here? Questions like
- Did they ever determine where these steel pieces came from (what tower, floor, column...)
- Has any of this been properly published?
- ???
- Do they have pieces of floor joists?? :D
 
Obviously they're lying, all the steel was melted down and shipped to China within days!
 
Last edited:
This example raises a theme I seem to have been repeating many times recently.

The theme being that truthers start their logic at the wrong end. They also reveal that they have a pre-set outcome in mind - "there was CD". This becomes most evident in people who ask questions about "Why didn't NIST do tests for explosives/incendiaries?" "Why did they let all the steel go?" - irrespective of the truth or falsity of those types of questions they all suffer from hindsightitis and a failure to properly contextualise what happened.

The reality is that there was not on 9/11 or the following days any reason to suspect CD assistance in any form. There wasn't then and there still isn't now. And, despite all the effort put into re-writing history, there has never been a supportable reasoned argument put forward. But that isn't the point I want to emphasis here.

Working from the top down the sort of "context" questions that truthers ignore and we debunkers too often let them get away with. (I will only give the WTC version for simplicity):
1) Given the admirably simple plan of 19 Terrorists hijack plains and fly them into high profile targets why would anyone want to complicate it with an impossible to conceal CD augmentation plan?
2) Given that anyone clever enough to devise such a CD augmentation plan would also be clever enough at structures to know that CD augmentation wasn't needed so why advise an unneeded CD?
3) (If we pass the two previous-these questions "cascade") How do you design a CD technical plan which has either to predict where the plane will hit OR has to be more widely implemented but only fired where the plane hits AND the redundant bits on other floors have to disappear?
4) How do you install a such a scheme without getting caught whilst you are doing it?
5) How do you keep such a scheme secret from the time it is installed until the date it is fired?
6) How do you arrange for the post explosion signs - explosives and firing circuit debris plus characteristic damage to cut structural members to disappear?
7) How do you make sure that no signs of CD remain through the clean up period? (This last somewhat overlapping the previous)

Now anyone proposing that there was CD will have to provide reasoned answers to all those and a few more. Even if they can prove there was thermXte on site. Even if they prove that only thermXte can create iron rich microspheres etc etc. They still face the formidable barrier that those seven questions or their equivalents present.

If there was a reasoned answer to the seven question then thermXte or microspheres might add to the "proof".

BUT there is no point to starting with the detail unless "they" have answers to the seven questions. And, if they do have answers proof of thermXte over RDX/C4 becomes redundant. And microspheres is only a lower order derail evasion subset of thermXte.

I was prompted to post this because the reference Oystein listed above makes the same tactical move of starting with detail.

My own explanation as to why truthers, including currently C7 at al, start at the detail is that I am convinced they know they cannot win a CD argument. And starting at the detail allows them to keep the debate going round in circles and not progressing. As evidence of that fact - round in circles - I look to the two current threads on thermXte and microspheres. Both are not advancing, they are circling.

Whether this is from deliberate trolling intent I leave for each member to make his/her own judgement. I personally lean towards intent but I'm not 100% certain. If it is intentional is is masterful trolling. :D



/adrenaline off :o
 
ozeco41 said:
This example raises a theme I seem to have been repeating many times recently.

The theme being that truthers start their logic at the wrong end. They also reveal that they have a pre-set outcome in mind - "there was CD". This becomes most evident in people who ask questions about "Why didn't NIST do tests for explosives/incendiaries?" "Why did they let all the steel go?" - irrespective of the truth or falsity of those types of questions they all suffer from hindsightitis and a failure to properly contextualise what happened.

The reality is that there was not on 9/11 or the following days any reason to suspect CD assistance in any form. There wasn't then and there still isn't now. And, despite all the effort put into re-writing history, there has never been a supportable reasoned argument put forward. But that isn't the point I want to emphasis here.

Working from the top down the sort of "context" questions that truthers ignore and we debunkers too often let them get away with. (I will only give the WTC version for simplicity):
1) Given the admirably simple plan of 19 Terrorists hijack plains and fly them into high profile targets why would anyone want to complicate it with an impossible to conceal CD augmentation plan?
2) Given that anyone clever enough to devise such a CD augmentation plan would also be clever enough at structures to know that CD augmentation wasn't needed so why advise an unneeded CD?
3) (If we pass the two previous-these questions "cascade") How do you design a CD technical plan which has either to predict where the plane will hit OR has to be more widely implemented but only fired where the plane hits AND the redundant bits on other floors have to disappear?
4) How do you install a such a scheme without getting caught whilst you are doing it?
5) How do you keep such a scheme secret from the time it is installed until the date it is fired?
6) How do you arrange for the post explosion signs - explosives and firing circuit debris plus characteristic damage to cut structural members to disappear?
7) How do you make sure that no signs of CD remain through the clean up period? (This last somewhat overlapping the previous)

Now anyone proposing that there was CD will have to provide reasoned answers to all those and a few more. Even if they can prove there was thermXte on site. Even if they prove that only thermXte can create iron rich microspheres etc etc. They still face the formidable barrier that those seven questions or their equivalents present.

If there was a reasoned answer to the seven question then thermXte or microspheres might add to the "proof".

BUT there is no point to starting with the detail unless "they" have answers to the seven questions. And, if they do have answers proof of thermXte over RDX/C4 becomes redundant. And microspheres is only a lower order derail evasion subset of thermXte.

I was prompted to post this because the reference Oystein listed above makes the same tactical move of starting with detail.

My own explanation as to why truthers, including currently C7 at al, start at the detail is that I am convinced they know they cannot win a CD argument. And starting at the detail allows them to keep the debate going round in circles and not progressing. As evidence of that fact - round in circles - I look to the two current threads on thermXte and microspheres. Both are not advancing, they are circling.

Whether this is from deliberate trolling intent I leave for each member to make his/her own judgement. I personally lean towards intent but I'm not 100% certain. If it is intentional is is masterful trolling. :D


/adrenaline off :o
Click to expand...

We have a term for it where I come from:

Jumping to conclusions.:D


P.S. - Conclusions is actually an island, read the Phantom Tollbooth
 
Listening to it now 4.51 - "...I did obviously see the steel phase..."

ROFLMAO

The steel phase!!!!

:dl:

I can tell you now, he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. None whatsoever.


Incidentally why has he not documented this evidence and published his metallographical data. I'd love to see "the steel phase" lol. I'd like to see his reasoning for melting and a temperature of 1100°C etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
Unbelievable. They are all the dimmest bulbs around.

Yeah, his use of the word "phases" to mean "compounds" is bizarre.

There are 4 phases of mild steel: Austentite, Martensite, Cementite and Ferrite (with 5 allotropes: a-Ferrite, b-Ferrite, d-Ferrite, e-Ferrite & g-Ferrite. Change all letters to Greek to match convention.).

I'd wager that he'd never once done a metallurgical analysis of steel before.

"How can we get to 1100°C in office fires? We normally get to 1/2 that temp." Is he nuts? TYPICAL office fires get to 1200 - 1300°C. in the flames. That means that small pieces of steel with large surface / volume ratios will get that hot, too. Typical upright massive beams do not get to these temps. Unprotected, lightweight beams do. The conditions in the GZ pile were ideal for getting to these temps & higher.

"thermite would go into the grain boundaries first" - Horsepucky. Thermite wouldn't have the time to be selective. I'd melt thru all phases without preference, and leave massive, unmistakeable residues.

Regarding "dissociating sulfur from gypsum wallboard". Giant red herring. The sulfur didn't come from wall board. Otherwise a very high percent of the steel would have had exactly the same erosion. There were only a couple of pieces that showed that erosion. Ergo, the sulfur was from an anomalous, rare source.

Glad he feels condescending to all the debunkers who wouldn't waste their time trying to pull sulfur out of gypsum.
 
Going from memory here, but a Truther got a small amount of metal that was basically slag mixed in with dirt at the bottom of one of the 9-11 Memorial sculptures and sent it to Jones. You can see him discuss the provenance of the sample starting about 23:20 into the video of the "Scholars Symposium" in LA in 2006. I believe but am not certain that the woman who got the sample originally was Janette MacKinlay, who was also one of Jones' sources for the nanothermite dust.
 
Brainster said:
Janette MacKinlay, who was also one of Jones' sources for the nanothermite dust.
Click to expand...

Who got it from her apartment, where she returned no earlier than 20th of September, and whose husband was a metal sculptor who worked in the apartment.

If we are talking about the original Jones dust samples.
 
Last edited:
ref said:
Who got it from her apartment, where she returned no earlier than 20th of September, and whose husband was a metal sculptor who worked in the apartment.

If we are talking about the original Jones dust samples.
Click to expand...

That's correct: The earliest metal sample Jones received came from Jeanette MacKinlay, and one wonders how she was able to snatch chunks of metal from the WTC. I didn't know she picked that chunk from her apartment - do you have a reference for that?

Later, apparently, Jones was let some debris, including scrap metal, that Clarkson University (Potsdam, NY) had been delivered along with WTC columns for a memorial. I don't know if any of the steel that Jones got was from the columns, or from the denris, and if they ever identified which assemly it belonged to (perimeter, core, floors, other, perhaps not even building structural?).

ETA: Oh and thanks for the link, Brainster!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom