Hilarious Steven Jones article

[pomeroo]

He actually thinks both buildings falling completely symmetrical from different impacts is an oddity, when its so obvious that those buildings should have fallen like that!

LOL your a comedian?

I keep wondering what you ignorant liars know that the demolition experts don't. Oh, right--absolutely nothing.

 

[pomeroo]

Now this was boring. I wake up expecting to see at least 1 thing wrong in the Steven Jones article, and all i get is "someone call the idiot police".

Please. I would love for you to share some of your favorite hilarious moments of Steven's article here, that's what this thread is for.

Hmmm. What did Jones get wrong? That's a tough one...

How about...

No thermite or thermate was used anywhere in the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. There is no physical evidence to support Jones's fantasy, thermite doesn't behave the way he pretends it does, and thermite is not used in demolition.

Yup, Jones is a hilarious fraud.

 

[Mancman]

This is hilarious:

Is the falling molten metal from WTC Tower 2 (Top photos) more likely molten iron from a thermite reaction (lower left) OR pouring molten aluminum (lower right)?

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce.

Jones himself says it looks to be 1000 C. Thus molten iron is ruled out. Self debunking!

And 1000 C is certainly NOT above what an office fire can produce.

 

[papasmurf]

This is hilarious:



Jones himself says it looks to be 1000 C. Thus molten iron is ruled out. Self debunking!

And 1000 C is certainly NOT above what an office fire can produce.

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?

 

[pomeroo]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?

Evidence for the use of thermite/thermate in the Towers is nonexistent. Jones and the mindless jackasses who swallow his snake oil are clueless about the properties and uses of these substances. You have failed badly.

 

[~enigma~]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot.

you apparently never spoke to any firefighters.

It is a well known fact that office fires rarely get above 600 C.

Again you never spoke to a firefighter have you? Typically an office fire is about 810 C or so.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C

Again, did you ever speak to a firefighter? Not even going to waste time addressing the WWTC sine you are intent on arguing but I will ask you what temperatures did firefighters report at the pentagon? As far as jet fuel, how do you expect water to be used when they use foam at airports since water is noneffective?

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

And your point is that an entire column must reach 1000 C in order for one spot on the column to be weakened?

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes

Hmm....how long was the jet fuel at the pentagon said to have been burning by the firefighters? Have you spoken to a firefighter yet?

It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.

Who said anything different. The temperature would be the same but if you think the intensity would...your fooling yourself.

 

[WildCat]

It's a good thing there's always kids turning 13, otherwise Jones wouldn't have anyone left in his cult.

 

[volatile]

Is this the guy with an "engineering degree"?

 

[~enigma~]

Is this the guy with an "engineering degree"?

double degree even...

 

[volatile]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.

 

[~enigma~]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.

Guess he never heard of intensity or duration.

 

[papasmurf]

And he doesn't know the difference between lighting one gallon of fuel on fire and lighting one thousand gallons on fire?

Remind me never to go for a barbecue at PapaSmurf's house.

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.

 

[Mancman]

I promise you it certainly is not possible for an office fire to get that hot. NIST knows the fires did not get this hot.

Then you remain wrong.

Cardington Tests:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...ures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

Steel reached over 1100 C - just from burning wood. In some of the beams, 600 C was reached in under 20 minutes.

As for it ruling out thermate, not even close.

The evidence showed that the intact steal beams reached 1000 C. this could easily have resulted from thermate being used, which would have melted the steel locally, and heated nearby sections of the beam to 1000C, hence why the beams were still intact.

This is such nonsense. So part of the beams melted, but the beams were still intact. What the hell are you saying. Jesus H.

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

A normal office fire will surpass jet fuel in temperature.

Support your claim that it would take hours to reach 1000 C. I know you can't. I can disprove it however.

In the Cardington Tests above, several of the beams surpassed 1000 C in around 45 minutes. Just from wood.

Jet fuel contains 135,000 BTU's per gallon. That's about 20,000 per pound.
Wood containing no moisture contains around 8,600 BTU's per pound.

So you claim that it would 'take hours' to heat steel to 1000 C with jet fuel, when it takes less than 45 minutes using a fuel with less than half the energy content.

You sir, are a laughing stock.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.


NIST says the fires were not that hot, Steven Jones says so, and you have nothing to say otherwise.


Anything else?

More nonsense. You've got nothing.

 

[papasmurf]

you apparently never spoke to any firefighters.Again you never spoke to a firefighter have you? Typically an office fire is about 810 C or so.Again, did you ever speak to a firefighter? Not even going to waste time addressing the WWTC sine you are intent on arguing but I will ask you what temperatures did firefighters report at the pentagon? As far as jet fuel, how do you expect water to be used when they use foam at airports since water is noneffective?And your point is that an entire column must reach 1000 C in order for one spot on the column to be weakened?Hmm....how long was the jet fuel at the pentagon said to have been burning by the firefighters? Have you spoken to a firefighter yet?Who said anything different. The temperature would be the same but if you think the intensity would...your fooling yourself.

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[TheRedWorm]

nvm

 

[pomeroo]

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Get new material, liar. You babbled the same tripe when I slapped you silly. Yes, we get the idea that enigma totally destroyed your stupid fantasy. Now, tuck your tail between your legs, flap your arms, and do Da Twoofa!

 

[volatile]

Another debunker who doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Yes, i stand by my claim that the temperature of burning fuel is an intrinsic property and independent of the amount of fuel present.

Enlighten me. What is the difference between heat and temperature?

And also tell me - would you put 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue?

 

[~enigma~]

Enigma,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Typical truther hand wave of anything that proves his ideas beyond useless.

 

[WildCat]

You can try to argue that jet fuel did it, but it would be very very difficult to get jet fuel to burn at even close 1000C in optimum conditions, and it is safe to assume that these conditions were not even close to optimum. Even if jet fuel burned consistently at 1000 degrees for hours, it would still not have heated the steel (especially fire protected steel) to 1000C.

Put it this way. If you took one of those massive collumns, and stuck it under a constant, 1000 degree jet fuel fire, it would take hours for the temperature of the steel to reach 1000 C.

We have a few thousand gallons burning less than optimally, and burning off in minutes, yet we are supposed to believe somehow that these fires were able to sustain temperatures above 1000C long enough to heat these steel collumns to 1000C. It doesn't even matter how much jet fuel there was at all. It has nothing to do with the temperature that jet fuel burns at. If i had 1 gallon of jet fuel or 1000 gallons and lit them on fire in the same conditions, the temperature of the flame would be exactly the same.

So you think the only thing burning was jet fuel?

Anything else?

Yes:

 

[~enigma~]

Enlighten me. What is the difference between heat and temperature?

And also tell me - would you put 1,000 gallons of fuel on your barbecue?

If his barbecue was for the entire population of Szechwan province...