Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

[Reactor drone]

If Jones can show a thermate reaction that produces steel samples that look like the ones in the FEMA report I'll gladly have a look at them. For now I'm not seeing anything other than an assertion that he's done testing that shows the same characteristics.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

That steel had visually different characteristics to most of the recovered steel, that's why it was put to one side for examination. You don't need to go over piece of steel with a microscope to see this stuff.

 

[T.A.M.]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM

 

[grandmastershek]

Too soon....too soon....

for what? a criticism based on reality?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

 

[funk de fino]

I'll rephrase my question,

If, as you say, "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators" were they able to distinguish between steel from the towers and steel from WTC 7?

Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

 

[funk de fino]

from the ncstar 1-3c damage and fairlure modes pdf:

"NIST has documented approximately 3 percent of all perimeter columns and 1 percent of all core columns intersecting floors with pre collapse fires. Thus, the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot give a picture of tempertures seen by the vast majority of perimeter and core columns."

The steel was inspected prior to NIST getting it.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think when Funk says forensic investigators he is referring to the investigators who examined it at Fresh Kills, not the investigators of NIST.

Exactly. the ones that no-one in the 911 TM movement have ever treid contacting. The ones that Red Ibis knows about having been shown tis many times. Those were the guys who pulled out some of these special samples for inspection at a later date. Somone said there was only one sample like this when there were two. It seems it has short circuited Red Ibis capacity to think.

 

[The Almond]

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm actually willing to believe he did indeed do some sort of experiment. Now, whether it's on an actual piece of WTC steel or not is a whole other question, and whether the boundary attack characteristics truly match Barnett, Biedermann, and Sisson's work is yet another. Like everything else, the Claus refrain applies: "Evidence?" If he's done the experiment, he should be willing to show some.

Normally i would be the same way, but this extraordinary evidence he says he has, he has been sitting on for years...really?

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

What I'd like to know is how the same sort of grain boundaries would've appeared after a fast heating and cooling that would happen with a thermite (or thermate) redox. Biederman and Sisson's work indicated that the sulfidation attack actually took place on the order of hours, and at lower temperatures than what would've been experienced in a thermate reaction (they indicate a max of "... maybe up to 1100^oC", endquote). I mean, yes, I know his competence and credibility in the necessary areas of knowledge is suspect, but still... the details of the comparison to Biederman's and Sisson's findings is the exact sort of issue that must be addressed, given that he himself invoked their work.

On the other hand, we don't really need him to publish anything to give us an excuse to reel off posts about his incompetence.

 

[RedIbis]

Are you too dumb to see that it doesnt matter?

Apparently, you're too dumb to realize that it does.

The fact that you don't think that it does is one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum. And that's really saying something.

 

[funk de fino]

Apparently, you're too dumb to realize that it does.

The fact that you don't think that it does is one of the stupidest things I've seen on this forum. And that's really saying something.

The fact you have failed to see what my reply was in reference to is even more stupid.

But wait, didn't they find that one piece of strangely corroded steel at WTC7? Was it the only one of it's kind in existence, or the only one that was examined?

No, it was not the only piece like this. There was one piece from WTC7 and one from one of the towers. What dont you get about that that you had to ask me a banal question.

 

[RedIbis]

The fact you have failed to see what my reply was in reference to is even more stupid.

So although you quoted my post, I was supposed to know that you were actually referring to someone else's post. Ok, that explains it. Next time I'll try to employ my psychic abilities, suspend what is the normal conventions of dialogue and try to be as smart as you.

 

[Senenmut]

You don't need a microscope to see the effects of man-made explosives and therm-anything.

true- remember sisson could only get "little metal" to dissolve in 24 hrs with his hypothesis. he is being a gatekeeper with the exact amount. ive emailed the library to get his graduate students thesis but apparently she didnt graduate so they dont have it. i emailed prof sisson who also said the same about the student and he never gave me the exact amount of dissolved steel over the 24 hr period.

here is some good pieces that were seen but apparently recycled.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

he saw this just alittle over a week after the attack.


another one-
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
"Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin", Astaneh said.

notice he is talking about more than one. he saw this between sept 19-29th.

and again-
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/n...ange-collapse-7-world-trade.html?pagewanted=2
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

 

[Senenmut]

That's it in a nutshell. He says it's the same, but his credibility as far as microscopy, basic materials science, metallurgy, forensic investigation and statistics is pretty much non-existent.

Then again, were he to publish his results, we would have the opportunity to have yet another 25 page thread about how incompetent he truly is.

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

 

[Dave Rogers]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

Why would a peer-reviewed journal be interested in publishing a paper that's nothing but a refutation of a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed? Publishing something like that would be the beginning of the slippery slope towards publishing papers refuting the ramblings of the delusional schizophrenic junkies at the local homeless shelter. Harrit et al has no intellectual respectability, and until it's passed a proper peer review process (hint: such a thing would not normally cause the managing editor of the jurnal to resign in protest) then it doesn't warrant a reply.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

It sits comfortably next to my SnooterSkootle in the "Land of unnecessary inventions".

First provide us with a LEGITIMATE PAPER that has been LEGITIMATELY peer reviewed, and then we'll talk. Good luck, Please Try Again.

TAM

 

[Scott Sommers]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

This is a very good point. It's the same one I keep asking those so-called skeptics about UFOs. Where is there peer-reviewed article that debunks Bob Lazar's anti-gravity device? Where is there peer-review that debunks time travel? Where is there peer-review that debunks creationism. And in this day where anyone can say something stupid and expect it to be taken serious, where is your peer-review that debunks flat Earth? Come on JREF. Get it together. The main purpose of science should be to take seriously every stupid claim that gets said by retards of every sort.

 

[kookbreaker]

where is your published paper that debunks the active thermitic material paper?

Its printed in the Journal of **** We Haven't Found Yet 'Cause it Doesn't Exist Vol XII Issue 4

 

[Senenmut]

Why would a peer-reviewed journal be interested in publishing a paper that's nothing but a refutation of a paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed? Publishing something like that would be the beginning of the slippery slope towards publishing papers refuting the ramblings of the delusional schizophrenic junkies at the local homeless shelter. Harrit et al has no intellectual respectability, and until it's passed a proper peer review process (hint: such a thing would not normally cause the managing editor of the jurnal to resign in protest) then it doesn't warrant a reply.

Dave

so what your saying is that no one can find paint chips that have the same characteristics as the material prof jones found?? am i right?