Hilarious Steven Jones article

[beachnut]

I just read this 41 page paper of total nonsense by Steven E Jones.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

I almost got brainwashed by the truthers and their terrorist propaganda!

No you are...

Just like you saying you will never be back, or for a long time, you have picked Jones; he lies too.

You have picked a liar to represent your views on 9/11, whether out of ignorance or disrespect.

But Jones is a big liar as he shows clean up cuts on steel columns as proof or implications of his nut bat crazy thermite ideas.

 

[papasmurf]

What you didn't say is that the temperature attained by the surroundings as a result of a reaction would be independent of the amount of fuel. Because that would be false, right?

Your frozen wood ignites at the same temperature as warm wood, but heats the room less, because some of the heat that would otherwise raise the temperature of the surroundings warms the remaining unburned fuel instead.

In real fires, especially structure fires, heat accumulates over time, raising the temperature. The amount and type of the fuel is one of many important factors in how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. The "reaction temperature" as you call it is in no way a limit on how high the temperature of interior spaces can get. When oxygen is limited, fuel that's not burning yet gets pre-heated by the heat released by fuel that's already burning, and its combustion temperature is therefore higher when it eventually does burn. There is no inherent limit to this process.

Here's a very easy brain-teaser for you that illustrates the principle involved. You have a pump that can only produce enough pressure to raise water one storey. Is it possible to use this pump to raise water to the top of a 100-story building? (Hint: you have two buckets, and a very long extension cord.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, yes ... this is very good Myriad. When something burns and releases heat into the building, the building temperature will raise over time.

However, my point still stands that the TEMPERATURE would never exceed the maximum temperature of what is burning... I don't know why we are still arguing over this. The issue here should be whether or not the fire in the building could have exceeded 1000 C. It is common knowledge that office fires (i know it was not just jet fuel, it is you people who claim the jet fuel is significant) rarely burn over 600 C, and hardly ever reach 800C.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the pump analogy...

 

[papasmurf]

papasmurf, are you aware that as part of the testing and validation of the fire dynamics modeling program, NIST built cube farms similar to those in the WTC towers, loaded them with measuring instruments, lit them on fire* and measured gas temperatures, heat release rates, rate of fuel consumption and the chemical makeup of the gases released by the fires?

The point of doing this was to gather empirical data to compare with the predictions made by the CFD fire modeling for a model of the same cube farms, but the data itself is worth looking at.

In these tests, upper-layer gas temperatures commonly exceeded 1000C- and those are actual real-world measurements, which trump your mere assertions.

You can read all about it in NCSTAR 1-5E.

*Setting stuff on fire for science- that's even cooler than working for the Mythbusters

I understand that all testing of actual wtc models and trusses failed to show how fire could have caused them to collapse. None of the tests showed failing truses or collumns as they had hoped.

 

[WildCat]

However, my point still stands that the TEMPERATURE would never exceed the maximum temperature of what is burning...

How on earth did the Romans make iron?

I don't know why we are still arguing over this. The issue here should be whether or not the fire in the building could have exceeded 1000 C. It is common knowledge that office fires (i know it was not just jet fuel, it is you people who claim the jet fuel is significant) rarely burn over 600 C, and hardly ever reach 800C.

By claiming it is common knowledge you think you don't have to source this ridiculous claim? Because it's been shown to you, using real-world fires and actual measurements, that they do.

If you keep this up one would get the impression you're a liar.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the pump analogy...

I'm not surprised.

 

[papasmurf]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

 

[papasmurf]

How on earth did the Romans make iron?


By claiming it is common knowledge you think you don't have to source this ridiculous claim? Because it's been shown to you, using real-world fires and actual measurements, that they do.

If you keep this up one would get the impression you're a liar.


I'm not surprised.

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!


Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

 

[beachnut]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

Jones implication of thermite are a lie. Those were cuts made during clean up and search and rescue. Sorry, you missed the photos of them making cuts;

You sure did not try very hard. Your ignorance on 9/11 is showing again.

Being immune to the truth is a problem of most 9/11 truth movement members. Lack of knowledge and real shoddy research. Like yours.
With your high grades in an Engineering program, it seems ashamed to waste and education on someone unable to apply it.

With your support of clean up cuts made after 9/11, you have failed to gain knowledge, and support Jones who made up thermite in September 2005. You are late over 6 years, Jones was only 4 years late. It took less time to get a Pulitzer Prize for Watergate. So your ability to research and get anything right about 9/11 is around zero.
Hurry back, you last long vacation was much too long, as it was expected to last forever.

 

[WildCat]

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!

Remember the link you hand-waved away? http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...ures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

If you continue to ignore it I will call you out as a liar every time I see you post. Yes papasmurf, office and residential fires can and do commonly get that hot.

Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

Perhaps you've never seen a picture of the Madrid tower prior to the fire? It had steel sections, which completely collapsed. Only the concrete columns remained standing.

Now, will you stop lying about how hot office fires commonly get?

 

[scissorhands]

Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

Heres one example of why its ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence.

and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

Looks like they are using a new fangled invention called a "crane", or a "cherrypicker"?
Also called, more properly, a "hydraulic access platform".

 

[WildCat]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

Nope.

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

What does the caption of this pic say?

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

Maybe a youtube video will help? Especially pay attention starting at the 1:30 mark.

Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

Because it's been proven beyond any doubt it was done by workers during the cleanup.

Oh, and there's also the little problem that thermite cannot make such a cut, not can explosives. Do I need to refer you to the hilarious truthburn experiment?

 

[~enigma~]

How did the romans make iron? They didn't make iron first of all, but they worked iron by heating/melting it in large kilns and burning lot's of wood and or coal (not a historian) under ideal conditions. These are conditions that fire codes aim to avoid in skyscrapers for obvious reasons.

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind. Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!


Perhaps you have never seen this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

Guess this is impossible for a hydrocarbon fire, right papasmurf? BTW, when are you going to talk to a firefighter before making yourself look sillier than you already do?



ETA - papasmurf seems oddly silent?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Looks like they are using a new fangled invention called a "crane"?

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

 

[Architect]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

Damn! Beaten to it.

Also called, more properly, a hydraulic access platform. Come in a range of handy sizes at very reasonable rates. Really, how can you Truthers not know this basic stuff?

 

[WildCat]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

So after truthers mine their quotes they pile them up and select the good ones with the cherry picker?

 

[Hokulele]

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind.

Building materials (and fire ratings) are designed based on Time/Temperature curves. Not temperature alone.

 

[scissorhands]

Commonly referred to as a "cherry picker".

Yes, though dont confuse him anymore than necessary, its a crane basically, with a working platform.

ETA. Ive added a full and unambiguous description of the machine portrayed, just in case there was any confusion.

 

[pomeroo]

You don't find those clean cuts on the collumns, with the thermite-like substance dripping down the sides odd at all?

That is a very interesting photo and one that needs investigated. If someone can prove that those photos were taken during cleanup and somehow were cut like that by the clean up crew, then that might discredit something.

I tried but was unable to find anything that showed those were photos taken during the clean up when they were cutting some of the steel. In fact, the firemen were mostly cleared out by the time they were doing most of that stuff anyway i believe, and they probably would not have cut that beam so high up, as there is no space around the beam for them to have performed a cut like that during clean up.

But there is no way that those beams did that from the collapse.


Can you explain why it is ignorant for people to use that photo as evidence?

There is no thermite dripping down. No thermite/thermate was used at the WTC complex.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Think about it. You arei arguing that the office fire was hot enough to weaken the steel to the point of collapse... do you really think they don't take this into consideration when designing a building? The materials in building construction and office contents are designed with this fact in mind.

Fireproofing. It's not the messiah, however. It's just there to slow the process down long enough for the fires to be put out before Really Bad Things™ happen.

 

[~enigma~]

When any truther starts spouting nonsense about the fires. Just post the video I did. Generally shuts them right up as they have no legs left to stand on with their stupidity that hydrocarbon fires can't damage steel. That was with a few guys. Any idea what a 15 story chunk of office building would have done to that steel even if it was as thick as those in the WTC?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Energy is NEVER an intrinsic property. Temperature IS an intrinsic property.

You seem to be confusing the properties of matter with those of a chemical reaction.

As I said, the heat of combustion for a given reaction is by definition an intensive property.

The temperature of a given object is also an intensive property, but the temperature released by a given combustion reaction is not. If you have two separate combustion reactions with all things being equal but with different starting temperatures of the reactants, then you will get two separate product temperatures.