Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[ElMondoHummus]

You're arguing a solidified eutectic - which is what the nanostructure shows: a granular structure indicative of a solidified eutectic - its not simply welding products that came in contact with gypsum - a solidified eutectic of mostly iron, sulfur, manganese, fluorine, potassium could somehow have ocurred due to office fires?

What in God's name does "solidified eutectic" have to do with anything? it wasn't solid while it was being formed!!! The whole point of pointing out eutectic reactions is to explain some of the evaporation noted on the steel! The sulfur is liberated from the various sources in the fire, and the temperatures leads to sulfurs and cholrides to react with the exposed steel forming a liquified euctetic. Read Barnett, Biederman, et. al.'s work to discover the details behind this. That's your eutectic reaction.

Do you realize that thermite will actually destroy a euctetic mixture? Do you understand that the temperatures thermite reaches exceed the 940 degree C temperatures that disassociate a euctectic mixture? Do you realize that trying to use such as proof of thermate's presence actually disproves it?? Read Ryan Mackey's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" paper pages 98 through 115 for a discussion of Barnett's and Biederman's work discussing this, and note that unlike you, I've actually directed you at the source actually discussing what I'm talking about.

And why can't you understand that the sulfur was liberated during the fire? You make it sound as though the fact that it was contained in gypsum means that it couldn't go anywhere. What about the gypsum keeps it from being the source of the sulfur Jones noted? Can you answer that?

And as noted before, that is one possible source. So are computer monitors. So are many other sulfur-containing items, such as diesel exhaust.

You're arguing that NIST or anyone else has never before 2001 investigated a fire where computer screens were burned to explain the surprising appearance of 1,3-DPP? In a quantity that dwarfed all others?

Are you completely off your socks?

For the love of God!... The news article Jones is quoting to demonstrate 1,3-DPP's presence is the very source that says where it most likely would have come from! No, it's not from thermate, nor is it surprising at all!

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/st...ategory=SEP11&BCCode=SEP11&newsdate=7/15/2006

The presence of computers is known. They were definitely there, they definitely burned. The presence of thermite, thermate, or the "solgel" that supposedly held the therm?te in place is completely unsupported. The very pieces of evidence Jones cites to prove therm?te are explained by the known presence of those other sources. How can you cling to the notion of therm?te when the very pieces of evidence supposedly demonstrating its presence are already expected to be at the WTC independently?

Good grief... you're not even arguing Jones's current work. He dropped discussion of 1,3-DPP some time ago.

None of your arguments so far support the notion that the "nanostructure" of the microspheres indicate thermite and eliminate other possibilities. Can you present some that do? You're still missing that.

 

[Dabljuh]

A word on the general modus operandi

Here's how it works: I propose a theory. Insane, out there, whatever. You falsify it. I refine my theory. You provide evidence that falsifies it. I refine my theory further. You provide further evidence falsifying it. I modify my theory further. You fail to produce evidence falsifying it.

Ultimately I may or may not end up with a theory that you are unable to falsify. Provided that this theory has a higher explanatory value than an alternative of your choosing, i.e. explains more phenomena, makes more predictions (or even more accurate ones), my theory is superior.

I believe we've reached that point. You've falsified the notion that a steel building could not collapse due to fire. You've falsified the notion that high explosives could have been used. But you fail to falsify a pure thermate hypothesis. And it has more predictive and explanatory value than the alternatives your offer.

So, we're at this point. My thermate hypothesis is the superior theory - until you manage to falsify it somehow. That doesn't mean it's the definite truth. It simply means that the thermate hypothesis is the best hypothesis on what caused the WTC to collapse, as it has more explanative value.

I don't care about your opinions. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here for you guys to prove me wrong. That's how science works.

If it were the opposite and we'd all simply look for confirmation of our insane ideas, we'd still be in the middle ages.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He's a Truther. Dishonesty in arguments is one of their primary weapons.

I have to admit, though, he's playing a good game here. He's moved on from an assertion that the collapses were suspicious to the point where he's getting us to address the products of his imagination and explain what's wrong with them. That's a clever job of shifting the burden of proof. It is only a game, of course, and I'm sure he's intelligent enough to realise it. I've had enough of playing it, though, so I think I'll let him believe whatever he wants to about splashing solids and anti-gravitic thermite. I have better things to do than stay in this thread.

Dave

 

[1337m4n]

Here's how it works: I propose a theory. Insane, out there, whatever. You falsify it. I refine my theory. You provide evidence that falsifies it. I refine my theory further. You provide further evidence falsifying it. I modify my theory further. You fail to produce evidence falsifying it.

Ultimately I may or may not end up with a theory that you are unable to falsify. Provided that this theory has a higher explanatory value than an alternative of your choosing, i.e. explains more phenomena, makes more predictions (or even more accurate ones), my theory is superior.

I believe we've reached that point. You've falsified the notion that a steel building could not collapse due to fire. You've falsified the notion that high explosives could have been used. But you fail to falsify a pure thermate hypothesis. And it has more predictive and explanatory value than the alternatives your offer.

So, we're at this point. My thermate hypothesis is the superior theory - until you manage to falsify it somehow. That doesn't mean it's the definite truth. It simply means that the thermate hypothesis is the best hypothesis on what caused the WTC to collapse, as it has more explanative value.

I don't care about your opinions. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here for you guys to prove me wrong. That's how science works.

If it were the opposite and we'd all simply look for confirmation of our insane ideas, we'd still be in the middle ages.

Your grasp of the scientific method is on par with that of a first grader. How about this, I will make a claim and challenge you to falsify it. If you cannot, then, according to your logic, that claim is true.

I challenge you to falsify the idea that the WTC was destroyed by invisible pink flying unicorns. This is explains the most phenomena according to your criteria, because unicorns have magic powers and can do anything. Therefore, all phenomena are explained.

"Do magic unicorns exist", you ask? I challenge you to prove that they do not.

 

[1337m4n]

Those members of this forum who are Atheists will be familiar with the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" analogy. You will find that this analogy also works well against Dabljuh's inane ideas. Throw it out there and watch him squirm.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Here's how it works: I propose a theory. Insane, out there, whatever. You falsify it. I refine my theory. You provide evidence that falsifies it. I refine my theory further. You provide further evidence falsifying it. I modify my theory further. You fail to produce evidence falsifying it.

Ultimately I may or may not end up with a theory that you are unable to falsify. Provided that this theory has a higher explanatory value than an alternative of your choosing, i.e. explains more phenomena, makes more predictions (or even more accurate ones), my theory is superior.

I believe we've reached that point. You've falsified the notion that a steel building could not collapse due to fire. You've falsified the notion that high explosives could have been used. But you fail to falsify a pure thermate hypothesis. And it has more predictive and explanatory value than the alternatives your offer.

So, we're at this point. My thermate hypothesis is the superior theory - until you manage to falsify it somehow. That doesn't mean it's the definite truth. It simply means that the thermate hypothesis is the best hypothesis on what caused the WTC to collapse, as it has more explanative value.

I don't care about your opinions. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here for you guys to prove me wrong. That's how science works.

If it were the opposite and we'd all simply look for confirmation of our insane ideas, we'd still be in the middle ages.

You're kidding me...

Every bit of evidence Jones supplies has explanations rooted in known contents in the towers. Manganese is added to structural steel, sulfur was known to be in drywall, computer monitors, etc., the oxygenation of the microspheres is not consistent with steel cutting but consistent with welding, the 1,3-DPP presence is explained by plastics... what piece of Jones theory has not been falsified?

On top of that, you've failed to defend your point about the "nanostructure" of the microspheres. One post was obfuscation and derail, the other just failed.

The thermate hypothesis has been falsified. Over and over. It's been falsified chemically, through observations of the bowing/buckling of the structure, and through the lack of explanation of how it got in there to begin with. It's already been done.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I believe we've reached that point. You've falsified the notion that a steel building could not collapse due to fire. You've falsified the notion that high explosives could have been used. But you fail to falsify a pure thermate hypothesis. And it has more predictive and explanatory value than the alternatives your offer.

So, we're at this point. My thermate hypothesis is the superior theory - until you manage to falsify it somehow. That doesn't mean it's the definite truth. It simply means that the thermate hypothesis is the best hypothesis on what caused the WTC to collapse, as it has more explanative value.

Incorrect. You have advanced a partial theory which is at odds with all that is known about the behaviour of liquids under gravity, which fails to explain any details of the WTC collapses, and is incompatible in countless ways with known wider events on and before 9-11. You are comparing this with a complete and detailed narrative of events which consistently explains the events and actions of everyone involved, the processes followed by the agencies involved, and the physical behaviour of the objects and systems in question. The hypothesis you challenge has never been falsified by physical or documentary evidence, and is contradicted only in minor areas by a very small fraction of the witness testimony, which is universally understood to be based on human memory and therefore prone to error in minor areas. Until you can come up with any information that falsifies this comprehensive narrative, the outpourings of your fertile imagination are of no relevance in understanding real events.

I've enjoyed discussing your fairy stories, but it's getting tedious now, so I have better things to do with my time.

Dave

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'd rather regret putting you on ignore since you may actually be of some use, so before I do that, explain to me exactly why "truthers" would have an interest in being genuinely dishonest, rather than just wrong (like I believe the moon-landing-never-happened-guys are) and how you feel this incentive compared to the incentive towards dishonesty by people actually involved in 9/11 such as the ones from NIST, the white house, Silverstein, FEMA, NORAD etc?

I'll retract my statement that you, specifically, are dishonest if you can explain how these two statements are both not mutually exclusive and not dishonest:

How about, you prove for a change that there was no thermite?

You got to be ******** me. You propose the existence of something. I propose the nonexistence. I can't show evidence supporting my claim. You can show evidence supporting your claim. You bring the evidence, or fail to do so.

My reasoning for thinking truthers are fundamentally dishonest is a learned reaction to their behavior. Dr. Jones for instance, won't even entertain the fact that Mr. Ross's conclusion that the towers will self-arrest is incorrect (when backed up with math as I have done so) if someone else arrives at the same conclusion through different incorrect methods. And yes, I have an email of him saying that.

Heiwa is another good example. He has his special paper which he claims was peer reviewed by NIST scientists based on the fact that someone from NIST opened his email (or maybe clicked on a link to his paper, I can't remember which). One of my favorite things his does, is pretend his paper doesn't change, and edits it all the time. We'll point out extremely incorrect concepts, math, or even fraudulent thinking (he proved the collapse would continue, but hand waves his own math away to say that it's impossible) and he'll change his paper to address said criticism without acknowledging said criticisms ever existed.

Tony Szamboti is another favorite of mine. He's a "peer reviewer" for JONES. He intentionally modifies his own perception of physics because he can't admit he's wrong or perhaps he just picks whatever he chooses that supports his conclusions, ignoring what is factually correct. I'm not sure which, though I'm pretty sure it's the former.

These are a few examples that come to mind of the truthers that I've interacted with. Perhaps your different, perhaps you could explain how demanding that I provide evidence of something not existing, and you expressing righteous indignation at someone else asking you to do the same is not dishonest? Perhaps I am incorrect here and am completely willing to withdraw my statement that you are dishonest and issue a full apology to you for calling you such.

 

[Dabljuh]

Now this is bad.

What in God's name does "solidified eutectic" have to do with anything? it wasn't solid while it was being formed!!! The whole point of pointing out eutectic reactions is to explain some of the evaporation noted on the steel! The sulfur is liberated from the various sources in the fire, and the temperatures leads to sulfurs and cholrides to react with the exposed steel forming a liquified euctetic. Read Barnett, Biederman, et. al.'s work to discover the details behind this. That's your eutectic reaction.

You're seriously arguing office fires melted the steel because sulfur was "liberated"?

Do you realize that thermite will actually destroy a euctetic mixture? Do you understand that the temperatures thermite reaches exceed the 940 degree C temperatures that disassociate a euctectic mixture? Do you realize that trying to use such as proof of thermate's presence actually disproves it?? Read Ryan Mackey's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" paper pages 98 through 115 for a discussion of Barnett's and Biederman's work discussing this, and note that unlike you, I've actually directed you at the source actually discussing what I'm talking about.

You're arguing that temperatures above 940°C somehow 'destroy' the effect of eutectics? When the whole point of an eutectic mix is to lower the temperature at which an alloy solidifies? You're claiming steel is impossible, as steel forms an eutectic mix between carbon and iron, significantly lowering its melting point from ~1500 to ~1300.

And why can't you understand that the sulfur was liberated during the fire? You make it sound as though the fact that it was contained in gypsum means that it couldn't go anywhere. What about the gypsum keeps it from being the source of the sulfur Jones noted? Can you answer that?

The fact that the steel melted. If the steel melted, we need to attribute for temperatures higher than 1300°C, a feat an office fire is not capable of.

For the love of God!... The news article Jones is quoting to demonstrate 1,3-DPP's presence is the very source that says where it most likely would have come from! No, it's not from thermate, nor is it surprising at all!

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

You do realize that Swartz is purely speculating there? Unless you argue this to be the first fire ever where computers in a building got burned, why would they find an abundance of specifically 1,3-diphenylpropane, something they've never found before, and not similiar levels of computer plastic ingredients? Jones' speculation that it is a sol-gel component is simply much more probable as Swartz' notion is pretty much falsified by this being the first time ever they observed this.

None of your arguments so far support the notion that the "nanostructure" of the microspheres indicate thermite and eliminate other possibilities. Can you present some that do? You're still missing that.

If you don't want to look, it's not my problem.

 

[A W Smith]

fire cant melt steel



Oh Wait!!

Dunt dunt duuuuuuunnnnnnnn!

 

[Dabljuh]

Every bit of evidence Jones supplies has explanations rooted in known contents in the towers. Manganese is added to structural steel,

Except that there was no steel in the samples, but iron

sulfur was known to be in drywall, computer monitors, etc.,

But how did the steel melt in the first place?

the oxygenation of the microspheres is not consistent with steel cutting but consistent with welding,

I could say 'you're making **** up' but you probably read this load of nonsense at a 'debunker site'

the 1,3-DPP presence is explained by plastics...

Because it was the first time ever that plastic burned, it was also the first time that this particular molecule was observed in quantities that dwarfed all others.

What piece of Jones theory has been falsified? I've only seen very dishonest and unconvincing attempts.

The thermate hypothesis has been falsified. Over and over. It's been falsified chemically, through observations of the bowing/buckling of the structure, and through the lack of explanation of how it got in there to begin with. It's already been done.

If you feel something is falsified to your satisfaction, then so be it. If it's not enough for me, then I may just have a different sense of judgment than you. Obviously, judgment, sense and intelligence are items that every man feels, he's got enough of, so there's no point arguing.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Now this is bad.
You're seriously arguing office fires melted the steel because sulfur was "liberated"?

You seriously think it wasn't? I await your attempt at falsification.

You're arguing that temperatures above 940°C somehow 'destroy' the effect of eutectics? When the whole point of an eutectic mix is to lower the temperature at which an alloy solidifies? You're claiming steel is impossible, as steel forms an eutectic mix between carbon and iron, significantly lowering its melting point from ~1500 to ~1300.

The fact that the steel melted. If the steel melted, we need to attribute for temperatures higher than 1300°C, a feat an office fire is not capable of.

I don't argue this. Barnett and Biederman do. Read Mackey's work before you try to answer. Your response fails, BTW, because the eutectic being discussed here is the sulfur-chlorides-steel eutectic, the reaction specifically being discussed regarding the Twin Towers collapse.

Again, read Mackey's work. You are arguing from incredulity and ignorance on this point.

You do realize that Swartz is purely speculating there? Unless you argue this to be the first fire ever where computers in a building got burned, why would they find an abundance of specifically 1,3-diphenylpropane, something they've never found before, and not similiar levels of computer plastic ingredients? Jones' speculation that it is a sol-gel component is simply much more probable as Swartz' notion is pretty much falsified by this being the first time ever they observed this.

You realize that his conclusion doesn't require the presence of an item disproven, whereas thermate speculations do. The mere fact that computers were present automatically makes that the more likely, far more probable hypothesis. When the alternative is some unproven, counterindicated agent, Occam's Razor makes its cut and discards the thermate possibility.

And once again, you argue from incredulity. Try arguing how Jones's supposed source is more probable, given that the computers are already konwn to be there independent of any incendiaries, and known to have burned.

If you don't want to look, it's not my problem.

You are the one who tried to raise it as a point. You're the one who needs to defend it. Is it possible that you actually don't know what the characteristics of the microspheres are, or how they supposedly indicate thermate instead of other sources? You seem reluctant to answer this point, one asked about 3 times now. Why is that? As noted before, one of your previous posts was at attempt to misdirect, the other simply failed.

What about the supposed "nanostructure" of the spherules indicate thermate and disqualifies other sources of generation?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

All right, dabljah, I have one question for you.

How was the thermite ignited?

Well????

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Oh, and one other question,

Do you understand the difference between heat and temperature?

Actually two questions, for a given combustion reaction, which is a fixed quantity, the heat or the temperature?

Well????

 

[~enigma~]

Well????

a match?

 

[Dabljuh]

I'll retract my statement that you, specifically, are dishonest if you can explain how these two statements are both not mutually exclusive and not dishonest:

I've already explained that in a previous post.

My reasoning for thinking truthers are fundamentally dishonest is a learned reaction to their behavior. Dr. Jones for instance, won't even entertain the fact that Mr. Ross's conclusion that the towers will self-arrest is incorrect (when backed up with math as I have done so) if someone else arrives at the same conclusion through different incorrect methods. And yes, I have an email of him saying that.

As you may well be aware, the question whether the towers will arrest, is not simply determined by "math" as you try to bring across, but actually by starting variables. It is perfectly legitimate to end up with different starting variables, as you are well aware of, many of these have to be guessed or estimated, and different final results can be the outcome. Jones, Ross, and yourself will all be very aware of the legitimacy to end up with different results.

But even if your calculations were [more] correct with your assertion that the 'piledriver' would not have arrested than Ross' calculations, would this unwillingness of Jones' to take your calculations over Ross be demonstrating intellectual dishonesty, or would this simply demonstrate his lack of trust in your abilities as compared to Ross'? I believe the answer is self-evident.

However, construing such an occurrence as an example of intellectual dishonesty - when it is so obviously not - and consequently using it to accuse "truthers" as intellectually dishonest - is by itself an example of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[pomeroo]

Here's how it works: I propose a theory. Insane, out there, whatever. You falsify it. I refine my theory. You provide evidence that falsifies it. I refine my theory further. You provide further evidence falsifying it. I modify my theory further. You fail to produce evidence falsifying it.

Ultimately I may or may not end up with a theory that you are unable to falsify. Provided that this theory has a higher explanatory value than an alternative of your choosing, i.e. explains more phenomena, makes more predictions (or even more accurate ones), my theory is superior.

I believe we've reached that point. You've falsified the notion that a steel building could not collapse due to fire. You've falsified the notion that high explosives could have been used. But you fail to falsify a pure thermate hypothesis. And it has more predictive and explanatory value than the alternatives your offer.

So, we're at this point. My thermate hypothesis is the superior theory - until you manage to falsify it somehow. That doesn't mean it's the definite truth. It simply means that the thermate hypothesis is the best hypothesis on what caused the WTC to collapse, as it has more explanative value.

I don't care about your opinions. I'm not here to convince you. I'm here for you guys to prove me wrong. That's how science works.

If it were the opposite and we'd all simply look for confirmation of our insane ideas, we'd still be in the middle ages.

Why do you invoke "science"? You're a conspiracy liar. Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. Your "thermate hypothesis" is merely uninformed rubbish fabricated by an agenda-driven know-nothing.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They lose about half their strenght around 600°C, which can be devastating for buildings without structural redundance. And even NIST has found no reason to believe that any part of the steel even got this hot (other than the collapse itself)

I'm not sure if this is a strawman or just plain ignorance. NIST ran computer FEM simulations and determined that yes, the steel did reach temperatures above 600C. Perhaps you should actually open the report and skim through the more relevant sections?

I bet you could without a problem run a computer simulation of similiar veracity that would show the towers could have survived. Again proving nothing.

It proves your statement, "[E]ven NIST has found no reason to believe that any part of the steel even got this hot," to be quite false, wouldn't you say?

Don't get sloppy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Except that there was no steel in the samples, but iron

Oh my goodness... you need to be nominated for a Stundie award for that statement.

The structural steel members used in the towers was the source of material for Jones's spectroscopic analysis. That provided both the iron for the samples and the manganese. The ultimate source for what Jones analyzed - the structural steel members - is the source for both elements.

Good grief... I can't believe you actually wrote that...

But how did the steel melt in the first place? I could say 'you're making **** up' but you probably read this load of nonsense at a 'debunker site' Because it was the first time ever that plastic burned, it was also the first time that this particular molecule was observed in quantities that dwarfed all others.

You did not pay attention to the argument then. Jones discussed the relative lack of oxygen in the spheres he found. He compared that to steel cutting samples, of which the particles were relatively oxygen-rich.

In steel cutting, additional oxygen is directed at the metals. That was demonstrated by the sources I provided. Such additional oxygen is not directed at metals when welding to join.

From cutting, yes, you'd expect spheres from torch cutting to be high in oxygen content. In oxyacetylene cutting, an additional oxygen stream is trained on the metal. However, in welding operations, you do not have this additional oxygen stream.¹ Welding merely relies on the oxygen available in the atmosphere, whereas cutting adds a pure stream of such. Seeing particles which are oxygen-poor relative to spheres produced by oxyacetylene steel cutting is entirely consistent with the notion that the low-oxygen-content spherules were created by welding.

¹ "The main difference between the cutting torch and the welding torch is that the cutting torch has an additional tube for high-pressure cutting oxygen." (link). Also, "In Oxy-fuel cutting, a cutting torch is used to heat metal to kindling temperature. A stream of oxygen then trained on the metal combines with the metal which then flows out of the cut (kerf) as an oxide slag..." (Wikipedia link, which cites the original source: "The Oxy-Acetylene Handbook, Union Carbide Corp 1975")

One of steel cuttings products is oxide slag, in which iron microspheres with higher oxygen content is to be expected. So Jones has successfully argued against steel cutting as a source, but the microspheres he's found are not inconsistent with steel welding. That's what I was saying. That you find it hard to accept is your failure.

What piece of Jones theory has been falsified? I've only seen very dishonest and unconvincing attempts.

What piece hasn't? We've already provides better sources for the various components he says comes from thermite, sources that don't depend on some external factor, but are known to have existed in the Twin Towers. Again, I point at the various elements he's discussed.

Also, I point at the bowing of the external columns. Your rebuttal to that was insufficient. Newton's Bit answered that.

On top of everything, you've failed to provide any mechanism for how the thermate supposedly got there to begin with. So has Jones.

Fact is, none of the attempts are dishonest. They speak directly to the problems fatal to the thermate proposal.

If you feel something is falsified to your satisfaction, then so be it. If it's not enough for me, then I may just have a different sense of judgment than you. Obviously, judgment, sense and intelligence are items that every man feels, he's got enough of, so there's no point arguing.

You are not demonstrating any good sense of judgement. You are basically making ex-machina arguments, saying that products and phenomena expected in the WTC are somehow proof of thermate. That's ridiculous. The alternate sources are better hypotheses because they don't rely on external factors for their presence. They're there already.

And you've stil failed to discuss the "nanostructure" of the particles. Just state why they supposedly prove thermate and negate other possible generative sources. It's simple. "This characteristic of the particles (fill-in-the-blank) demonstrates that thermite was responsible because (fill-in-the-argument). It contradicts welding because (fill-in-the-blank)." Or whatever form of narration you choose. It doesn't matter how you format the argument.

 

[Dabljuh]

You seriously think it wasn't? I await your attempt at falsification.

Every office fire so far

I don't argue this. Barnett and Biederman do. Read Mackey's work before you try to answer. Your response fails, BTW, because the eutectic being discussed here is the sulfur-chlorides-steel eutectic, the reaction specifically being discussed regarding the Twin Towers collapse.

They're saying the same ridiculous thing as you do.

This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC

The first problem being that you need to melt the steel first before you can form an eutectic. Second being that it's not steel, it's iron. Finally, the notion of an office fire heating a steel beam to 1000°C is fairly improbable in the first place. And it's extremely improbable given the sheer amount.

You realize that his conclusion doesn't require the presence of an item disproven, whereas thermate speculations do. The mere fact that computers were present automatically makes that the more likely, far more probable hypothesis. When the alternative is some unproven, counterindicated agent, Occam's Razor makes its cut and discards the thermate possibility.

If one assumes the presence of thermate impossible, then computers are the only possible explanation. However, burning computers would leave a wider range of molecules, and there wouldn't simply be one where the presence "dwarfed all others" - Much less given the fact that this was the first time ever they detected this compound.

If one allows thermate as an option, attributing the molecule to be related to the thermate becomes infinitely more probable.

And once again, you argue from incredulity. Try arguing how Jones's supposed source is more probable

I can do that because I'm smart. Don't worry, I don't expect you to understand it.