Hilarious Steven Jones article

[Alferd_Packer]

Oh and BTW, papasmurf, I started a thread just for you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120254

 

[AZCat]

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.

That's why new buildings generally have fire sprinkler systems. The WTC towers were retrofitted with sprinkler systems as a consequence of the 1975 fire which, if it had run unchecked, would have been catastrophic.

 

[AZCat]

Remember, no high rise building has ever collapsed from fire!

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

 

[JimBenArm]

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?

I don't find them at all noteworthy. But then, I've actually seen cutting torches used, and have seen slag runoff exactly like that. It helps to have real-world experience, instead of relying on the lies told to you by idiots who know nothing.

 

[Dog Town]

This is multiple floors smashed together due to a 100 TONS of TNT gravitation potential energy release Jones failed to understand so he makes up lies.

And... just to show Jonesy's penchant, for manipulating photos, here's another pic of same. Hmmm... Thermi(a)te river, glowing flashlight photo?

 

[papasmurf]

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!


As for the person who is saying heat of combustion is intensive, this is only the case when giving the value in terms of kJ/kg. Notice that to determine the actual energy given by the reaction, you need to know the mass, so the energy is extensive. The more relevant value in our case is the total energy, not the energy per mass, so the property we are concerned with is the extensive energy value.

Anyways I would like to take your word for it that the collumn was cut, but i need more evidence that they were doing those things during search and rescue, and the types of cuts they were doing. It would make sense that we were cutting metal to get to lower sections buried under the rubble, but can you come up with a good reason for cutting a tall vertical collumn that is standing above the rubble? Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.

 

[AZCat]

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!

Of course you did. It's still a stupid argument.

 

[~enigma~]

Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.

Not even worth addressing anything else you said but why would a worker cut a column to any size other than what the trucks could handle? And Asia? Did you ever hear of Fresh Kills or are you parroting CT baloney again?

 

[bynmdsue]

1) Perhaps the column was cut before rubble was cleared away from it.

2)They drove the steel to Asia?

 

[WildCat]

Anyways I would like to take your word for it that the collumn was cut, but i need more evidence that they were doing those things during search and rescue, and the types of cuts they were doing.

Did you miss this post?

It would make sense that we were cutting metal to get to lower sections buried under the rubble, but can you come up with a good reason for cutting a tall vertical collumn that is standing above the rubble?

Yeah, people are generally uncomfortable with tons of unstable metal hanging over their heads while heavy equipment is being moved around.

Even if it was cut by workers, it doesn't change the fact that most of those collumns were cut into neat 30 foot sections ready to be loaded on trucks and sent to asia.

Looks like you're back to thinking the columns came in 1300 foot sections again?

And do you accept that normal office fires can attain temps of 1000C? I need to know whether you intend to lie for the duration of your time here.

 

[bynmdsue]

Oh Yeah...

3) Wasn't the steel originally in 30 Ft. lengths?

 

[Mancman]

Of course i meant steel framed! And this is not a small population!

Based on your research, how big is the population?

 

[papasmurf]

Based on your research, how big is the population?

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.

The photo was brought in here by someone else, but since neither side can show proof of what happened to it, it shouldn't be discussed any further.

 

[beachnut]

How many more goalpost moves are there?

papasmurf has presented Jones, the biggest failure, the nicest guy in 9/11 truth. You will know your engineering education has taken a hold when you can research and understand Jones made up thermite. Until then, your education is a failure in helping you to understand 9/11.

So far you have been plastered on this one thread many ways, and now you move the goal posts so you can lose on a bigger field?

 

[AZCat]

This is boring and incredibly stupid.

Yes, that is why we called you on it.

I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

I don't think that word meas what you think it means.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.

Which computer simulation? You are aware that the NIST performed several different simulations as part of the WTC Tower collapse investigations? Please reference the specific simulation you are criticizing.

 

[~enigma~]

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

Can we stick the Steven Jones article, like how NIST won't reveal the parameters they entered for the computer simulation and other details about it. How they had to select the most severe and least likely case to get the towers to initiate collapse, and then on top of that had to continue tweaking until they got what they wanted to cause collapse. Can we talk about how we are not allowed to see the details of this simulation. Thanks.

The photo was brought in here by someone else, but since neither side can show proof of what happened to it, it shouldn't be discussed any further.

Typical truther hand wave to dismiss anything that proves their baloney wrong.

 

[beachnut]

And... just to show Jonesy's penchant, for manipulating photos, here's another pic of same. Hmmm... Thermi(a)te river, glowing flashlight photo?

No thermite in that piece of many floors with papers still in it. That alone, that one photo makes Jones work total junk, stupid, pure fantasy, crap, etc. I find it hard how a person as nice as Jones can spew so many lies.

 

[WildCat]

This is boring and incredibly stupid. I showed you a video of 3 or 4 massive fires in steel framed high rises that were left perfectly intact.

This is a lie. The first building shown in your video was the Madrid Windsor. The only thing left standing after the fire was the concrete (not steel, it was a reinforced conrete structure). the steel portions failed completely.

I didn't bother watching more after encountering this lie.

Any comment on this papasmurf?

 

[beachnut]

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

You show a building with a concrete core, which is why it did not fall! But the building was TOTALED BY FIRE. LOL I thought it was funny you show most the top of the building "exploding" from the fire and falling to the ground this is funny. Another thing is the fire looks 1000 times more impressive at night!

Then you make a statement about building being intake, and you use this stupid comparison. A concrete core to a non-concrete core, and the one with out fell, just like the steel only frame you show falling off the building.

BTW, the Madrid building is not around any more, it was totaled by FIRE! LOL

Where are you other videos? Can you repeat your list of intact buildings, Madrid is out. Can you please find a building with no fire systems working and no firefighting efforts. So far you have shown the Madrid building which was fought all night with water being sprayed on the building which kept the lower parts from falling off! So get your act together and try again! Madrid is a perfect example why a concrete core can keep a building from collapsing even when it is too weak to use any more. Sorry, you are busted on this one.

 

[Minadin]

You're a little behind on your red herrings, papasmurf. Plenty of "high rise" buildings (typically defined by NFPA and others as having a highest occupied story greater than 75 feet above the level of fire department access) have collapsed because of fire. Other members of the "truth movement" have realized this and now are claiming that no steel-framed, modern high rise buildings have ever collapsed from fire (a much smaller population, and one with far less building-years). This is, of course, a stupid game to play. The WTC towers were not felled by fire alone, and WTC 7 was hit by portions of a larger building.

Italicized boldings by me -

It's weird that people who have actual knowledge of these things tend to use the same definitions -

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3846827#post3846827

Whereas conspiracy theorist definitions seem to vary greatly from post to post, or depending on what point they are trying to make.