Ok, listen. I won't discuss with you anymore. Obviously we differentiate in how we judge the evidence, not in being presented with it. I have better things to do. Some people may raise actual, convincing arguments while I'm here reading your... contributions... and I'm feeling my brain rebel. I'm sorry. It may be your avatar, I mean, seriously, Bugs? I'll ignore you from now on. I appreciate your effort and all and I sense your honesty but I can't spend time on you anymore. You should go see other threads.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)
- Thread starter Dabljuh
- Start date
Haha. Real scientific there, guy-who-is-now-ignored.
You may actually have a point. We certainly can't understand how a muddleheaded know-nothing who gets everything wrong could be smart.
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Liar.
Considering that I hold the knowledge necessary to design, through math, buildings to not fall down (which you admit you do not), I likewise also hold the ability to analyze, through math, buildings falling down. This is not a complicated idea. It's almost easy to do this if you're not blinded by prior bias. However, if you want to stand up and praise a man who will not accept a paper is WRONG, mathematically, through fundamentals of physics, and even ethically wrong, because other people arrive at similar conclusions, through likewise errors, than that is your concern. I will not, hold discussions with someone who is as fraudulently, and dishonest as you and is not as entertainingly dumb as Heiwa.
Keep praising your Truther Gods, like Jones, who will lead you down into a world of paranoia, distrust and hate all for the sake of making a buck. Where will you be in 20 years? When there hasn't been a new investigation, no indictments, no trials. Will you still be so angry?
Welcome to my ignore list. Btw, I'll actually click the ignore button and not read what you say. I'll occasionally ask other folks here if you've done a calculation showing how the steel in the towers will just wick away all that heat. Not that I'll be expecting you to have done so. I just want to remind you every great once in awhile that you don't know everything, and some things you don't have the capacity to understand.
Last edited:
Oh, genius, your use of the word "differentiate" is egregiously inept. You want "differ."
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Well, I'm done. There's really little point anymore. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone who automatically believes that any Truther is to be considered correct unless proven otherwise, even to the point of assuming they're correct after being proved to be intellectually dishonest. While at the same time assuming anything that is contradictory to "Truth" is intellectually dishonest.
The paranoia of those who believe there are actually people out there spreading "disinformation" is rather nauseating to be around.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Steel is an alloy consisting mostly of iron with a carbon content between 0.2 & 0.4% by weight dependent on grade. If you intend to argue this please get your facts straight.
This is what made up most of the structural elements in the towers.
Otherwise this attempt to separate 'steel' and 'iron' is a moot point, steel is essentially iron for the most part.
May I remind you that they apply fire proofing for a reason. If this threshold, or anything lower were impossible [or improbable] then all of the code requirements would mean nothing but a waste of money on the part of architects, structural engineers and construction management.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Apparently he does believe that... rather entertaining actually
Here's the question: Even if Jones was as wrong about the collapse structure as you said - would it make a difference about his statements regarding thermite (The detection of which he is far more qualified than you, me, or anyone else on this forum) ? Would it make a difference in the context of a larger conspiracy theory?
I think you're a truther who had his contributions simply rejected by Jones due to the lack of credentials (compared to someone else, who you feel is in fact incompetent compared to yourself) and now you act your grudge out on JREF, where the amount of groupthink has reached hilarious proportions.
If you're right about your structural analysis, you should continue to try to convince Jones. But it should be obvious that, if you're going at him with your mind preset on disproving the entire conspiracy theory, you'll not get anywhere. He's probably had too many experiences with people with zero scientific integrity trying to "prove" him wrong.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
All right. Source that. Since you say that every office fire so far has not had notable sulfur liberation, show me where you're getting that from. Show me a citation, such as a report listing the products of an office fire found after combustion where sulfur is diminishing low to nonexistent.
When you're done with that, note that liberation of chemicals due to combustion has precedent. The very thing that Jones is attributing to thermate - the 1,3-DPP - was liberated by fire somehow. The EPA study shows this. We're only arguing the source of the chemical, not the fact that it was quite obviously liberated.
And then when you're done with that, falsify the other potential sources. Like I said, diesel emissions can contribute sulfur; so can acid rain.
The point is that you're homing in on thermate and discarding all the other sources without thought. They're all far more probable, because they're known to have been at the towers (or in the case of acid rain, known to be an environmental feature period, regardless of location in the US).
No, the point of eutectics is that they provide conditions that lower steel's melting point. And distinguishing between steel and iron is irrelevant in this case; we're talking about the WTC's structural steel members.
Irrelevent. The eutectic reactions being discussed that were present in the WTC were at far lower temperatures, between 550 and 850 degrees C. Reread Mackey's paper and Barnett's & Biederman's work.
No, computers are one of the only possible explanations because they're known to have been in the towers. And discussions of this being the first time they've detected this doesn't speak to fires at all. Note Mr. Swartz's comment:
In any sampling. Since when has the EPA sampled after large office fires? You're making assumptions as to what he was referring to. There's no indication that he's referring to sampling strictly after fires.
And that's what I mean about Deus-ex-machina. One source for the compound is known; the other is not only merely proposed, but it's contraindicated by other evidence. You can't just provisionally allow it as an option. There must be indications of its presence, and this one element we're discussing can not be because it has an alternate, known source.
No, you can't. Arguments from incredulity are logical fallacies. The intelligence level of the person making the argument has nothing to do with the fact that they're fallacious. They fail period, independent of any characteristic or quality the person making the argument has.
Jones did mention specifically that it's not steel, but iron. Jones is a physicist. Would you argue that Jones doesn't know the difference between steel and iron, or would you agree that his statement means that there was not enough carbon in the iron to make it likely for the product to be molten structural steel?
None of that makes any sense. As we all know, steel does not need to be heated to 1000°C to endanger the structural integrity of a building. As far as I understand it, the fireproofing only serves to slow the absorption of thermal energy by steel in the case of a fire. It does not somehow change the temperature of the fire or the melting point of steel.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Apparently he doesn't... Steel is simply an alloy of iron with 0.2%-0.4% carbon added by weight... The carbon is added to increase the material strength. In all it is still essentially iron... there's not much to separate between the two in the first place
True, seems I backfired here just a bit... There are structural fires which do however reach 1800 oF (1,000 oC). And according to NIST there were isolate pockets in the trade centers which briefly reached this temperature. So your original claim doesn't stand to much....
Last edited:
Um... I don't know what to say. If there was less than 0.1% carbon in the steel, that pretty much makes it iron, no?
I'm aware of this. However for a variety of reasons it is still improbable for the steel itself to have reached this temperature. For example: To heat something, the fire needs to actually be hotter than the object it heats, otherwise they're just in equilibrium. And to heat any portion of a thick structural beam with an unfocused fire to 1000°C takes a long time.
But much more so the apparent quantity of the samples that apparently were heated to above 1000°C speaks against "isolated pockets".
I beg to differ.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Pretty muuuch....
The samples Jones obtained were from the world trade centers, were they not? The trade centers were built of steel... were they nooot?
Mind clarifying your original comment so I can decide whether or not I landed in a napalm field?
I think Jones' point was that it was rather pure iron instead of merely molten steel, i.e. it didn't contain any of the elements you'd associate with structural steel - carbon, chromium, vanadium, what do I know - and the location of the manganese was (in the microstructure) not in the iron grains but in the potassium-sulfur-fluoride-etc-rich grains. Manganese would be a part of structural steel, most steels in fact, but can also be part of a thermate mix in the form of potassium permanganate.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
Man I am laughing so hard. Jones clearly does not understand the metallurgy and his presentation was absolutely woeful. I would have been crucified if I had ever presented "evidence" in that manner. He simply states that certain elements were found in the samples. There's no quantitative analysis and I'm wondering what technique he used - the film was of such poor quality I couldn't make anything out. Just because some elements were found doesn't mean that he can jump to a conclusion of thermite. The slides simply show a eutectic of some sort (which on first glance looks like aluminium-silicon). He wibbles about the light and dark patches and some of their chemical make up, but I couldn't work out what the point was. He clearly doesn't understand that a eutectic structure contains two phases.
He puts up the slide showing sulfidation which is exactly what one would expect to see in a sample that had been in a severe fire containing materials that would release sulphur went burnt but he doesn't know the mechanism of sulfidation and intergranular corrosion.
And as for Dubljuh he is so far off the mark it's untrue, he knows less of what he's talking about from a metallurgical perspective than Jones and that's saying something! Dubljah - I suggest that you make it a goal to understand the iron-carbon system (there's loads of info on the web) and how the various alloying elements change that diagram, that way you might actually have a clue with regard to steels and their microstructures (not nanostructures-lol) that are likely to form when various grades of steels are solidified and cooled. You will also learn that 0.1% (wt) Carbon in Iron is a steel.
He puts up the slide showing sulfidation which is exactly what one would expect to see in a sample that had been in a severe fire containing materials that would release sulphur went burnt but he doesn't know the mechanism of sulfidation and intergranular corrosion.
And as for Dubljuh he is so far off the mark it's untrue, he knows less of what he's talking about from a metallurgical perspective than Jones and that's saying something! Dubljah - I suggest that you make it a goal to understand the iron-carbon system (there's loads of info on the web) and how the various alloying elements change that diagram, that way you might actually have a clue with regard to steels and their microstructures (not nanostructures-lol) that are likely to form when various grades of steels are solidified and cooled. You will also learn that 0.1% (wt) Carbon in Iron is a steel.