BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate ... Building Collapses an Inside Job

[Veronica.Franco]

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job

Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.

Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml

At what temperature does steel melt? ... The hell with a physics professor from Stanford of all places ... off with his head! ... the Bushies are in charge here ... they've paid for this forum ... they own it ... back off you sicko libruls ... ;-)

[Redstone]

1. Uh, huh. Sure. It was "analysed?" And from "redundant sourses?"

Tell you what: when they learn to spell, I'll consider them a legitimate news source (not "sourse").

Redstone

[wtmusic]

2. But...but...Prof. Jones is a Phd from Stanford...Cornell...

he prolly even wears a sweater with patches on the elbows!

:cry:

[Redstone]

4. Even more convincing, a TWEED JACKET with patches. And smokes a pipe!

Redstone

[Teaser]

11. A pipe! It must be true.

nt

[Veronica.Franco]

3. High Energy, Lead-Free Ignition Formulation for Thermate

High Energy, Lead-Free Ignition Formulation for Thermate

Abstract: An efficient ignition formulation for thermate was developed during the XM89 Enhanced Incendiary Grenade program to use as an alternative to the standard lead oxide-containing formulation used in the AN-Ml4 thermate grenade. This lead-free formulation has provided reliable ignition of the XM89 over a temperature range of -25 degrees F - 120 degrees F when using the M201 Al fuze as the initiator. Reliable ignition of the thermate could also be achieved using 10 g of the new ignition formulation. The AN-Ml4 employs 30 g of ignition mix. The ignition formulation described in this report has also been successfully employed to initiate other pyrotechnic devices such as flares and smoke compositions. It may also have some application as a combination delay/output formulation in devices that do not require either a "gasless" delay or sealing of the delay tube with reaction products.

http://www.stormingmedia.us/39/3910/A391004.html

[Redstone]

7. Your point being?

Redstone

[Richard D]

12. Um, this was your original unedited post

Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Jun-19-06 05:01 PM

Response to Original message

1. It's "Thermite," not "Thermate." Therefore, the whole article is bullshit.

If they can't get THAT right, they can't get anything right.

Redstone
"None Genuine Without This Signature"

[mirandapriestly]

20. Figures, that you ridicule without even knowing what

he's talking about.

[Rex]

5. Thermate is an improved version of thermite.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m14-th3.htm

I just think by now that people are either gonna believe or they won't.

[Richard D]

6. Actually . . .

. .. I make no comment on the article, but Thermate is an improved version of Thermit.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/39/3910/A391004.html

[libertypirate]

27. If you were being honest you would note the professor

did say that they are a waiting additional sourcing...

We all know your goal is not honesty.

What makes you completely dishonest is the fact that the professor did state that the pattern of evidence, not the cherry picked versions often so quoted by the “official tin foil hat brigade”, narrowed the scope of provable substances which could result in complete building failure to thermate or thermite.

Your still stuck with the reality that on 9-11-2001 something occurred which had never before happened, three buildings completely collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition, in the time of controlled demolition, and the resulting piles of rubble and debris was exactly like a controlled demolition; all ruled caused by fire and damage. Not one of the reports can even conclude that it is a possibility that these buildings could collapse in the manner they did. All the data in these reports paints a picture different then the “official tin foil hats” assume to believe.

[The Doctor.]

48. No, no, no... every building we bombed in Iraq came down the exact

same way.

Skyscrapers are made to fall like that, that's why they build them to have thermite reactions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Thermite is aluminum and iron oxide.

Aluminum and iron in a sky scraper? GREAT SCOTT!

[Redstone]

9. Hell of a surprise, isn't it?

Redstone

[Rex]

10. So where did the sulfur come from to make Thermate?

Anyone know if planes have any sulfur on-board?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Sure.

There's sulfur in the gas. Sulfur in the humans. Sulfur in the just about everything.

[petgoat]

22. A metallurgist, a materials scientist, and a fire engineer

walked into a bar....

No, these 3 Phds did a study of WTC steel that had suffered a sulfidation attack and
been reduced to swiss cheese. They were utterly mystified as to the source of the
sulfur. If the sulfur in everything commonly reacted with steel buildings to make
thermate, surely we would have encountered this phenomenon before.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

25. "possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground."

The truth is these scientists have no way of determining when this sulfuric corrosion happened, and therefore this is not evidence for anything one way or the other.

That's no way to run a "truth" movement, Petgoat.

[petgoat]

29. "The truth is these scientists have no way "

That is not the truth. Further studies that NIST refused to fund might have determined
the conditions under which the eutectic sulfidation could have occurred.

this is not evidence for anything one way or the other.

You are playing the know-nothing card. "We do not know anything and we can not know
anything--let's talk about Angelina Jolie's boobs."

What we know is that the steel in both the towers and WTC7 suffered a mysterious
and highly unusual sulfidation attack. The source of the excess sulfur is not known.
Some on this board have suggested that it came from drywall or diesel fuel. No
credentialed person has suggested such sources. It remains a mystery. The failure
to fund continued studies is a mystery.

Some have suggested the sulfur came from explosives or thermate. Under the circumstances
NIST's statement that "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives
planted prior to September 11, 2001" seems puzzling. I don't know beans about explosives
but some, who do, suggest that the sulfidated steel could be corroborating evidence of
explosives. NIST's claim there were no steel samples from WTC7 ignores the existence of
the sample analyzed in FEMA Appendix C.

Claims that there is "no evidence" is just wilful blindness.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. That IS the truth

The scientists cannot state when this "attack" happened, whether before or after collapse, or even weeks after. They cannot say. They have no information one way or another.

This means that this helps you not. It's not evidence that the "attack" happened before collapse, when it could just as easily be after. You can't use this as evidence. This fits everywhere, and thus supports nothing.

PS: I'm gay, so let's talk about Brad Pitt's abs instead, okay?

[petgoat]

50. There is no known mechanism for the sulfidation attacks from

baking in the debris pile. There is a known mechanism, I believe,
in the use of explosives or thermate.

The answer could be had by relatively simple experiments involving
cooking or burning steel with various sulfer-containing substances.

That NIST declined to fund such simple studies and pretends that the
FEMA Appendix C report doesn't exist suggests that they don't want
to know the answer.

You're trying to exclude a piece of evidence from a cumulative case
on the grounds that it's not dispositive.

[LARED]

34. Have you created a new definition for "utterly mystified"?

From your link

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

[petgoat]

35. They sound pretty mystified to me.

An article at their Institute quoted the NYT Times to the effect that
their findings were "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation"
and concluded by characterizing the issue as "mysteries that have confounded the
scientific community."

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Dr. Biederman's suggestions that the sulfur may have some from acid rain or ocean
salt or burning plastics indicate much uncertainty about its source.

Dr. Barnett said they have no idea whether the eutectic corrosion happened before
the collapse or happened in the debris pile. That sounds pretty mystified.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Yet you

Dr. Barnett said they have no idea whether the eutectic corrosion happened before
the collapse or happened in the debris pile. That sounds pretty mystified.

Yet you have no problem using this as definitive evidence that there were bombs. That sounds pretty unscientific to me.

[petgoat]

47. What's unscientific is your silly straw men. nt

[WoodrowFan]

14. WOW

has it been confirmed by a source besides nutjob Cold-fusion Jesus-visited-America-look-at-those-rock-paintings Jones??

No?

thought not.,

[iconoclastNYC]

15. He's not a Cold-Fusion guy

This has been debunked time and again.

[SidDithers]

26. He invented the term Cold Fusion...nt

Sid

[iconoclastNYC]

31. Jones and Cold Fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones


In the mid 1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists demonstrated an interesting new effect related to the potential for harnessing energy from cold fusion, now also referred to as muon-catalyzed fusion. The Jones process – not to be confused with the Cold fusion research of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann – did not produce excess heat, and therefore did not provide a source of energy. The Jones process, through measurement of charged particles, demonstrated excellent validation that nuclear processes can occur in a relatively simple, room temperature experiment.

Jones did not claim that any useful energy was produced. Rather, he reported slightly more neutrons were detected from experiments than could be expected from normal sources. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though unlikely to be useful as an energy source. A New York Times article entitled Physicists Debunk Claim Of a New Kind of Fusion notes that while peer-reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research, they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest findings. The reviewing physicists stated that "Dr. Jones is a careful scientist."

[SidDithers]

39. Yes, I know that...

I actually do have a degree in physics, and recognize that muon-catalyzed fusion is different from the work that Pons and Fleischman did. It wasJones, however, who invented the term Cold Fusion.

Oh, and look. Jones has published his fusion work in peer-reviewed journals of The American Physical Society. Imagine that...
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v56/i6/p588_1

Now, why hasn't his ST911 work also been published. I mean, he obviously knows the process for submitting his research findings.

Sid

[petgoat]

49. A major problem in publishing in general is the genre issue.

If you write a detective story that's supposed to be literature, but it's too
arty for the detective crowd and too gritty for the art crowd, it can be
difficult to find a publisher. They have to know what shelf in the bookstore
to put it in.

The same principle applies to the scientific journals. Jones's work is of little
interest to a Physics journal because it's simple freshman physics. It's of no
interest to an engineering journal because he has no engineering qualifications,
and because it challenges powerful interests in that community.

[Grateful for Hope]

53. Can't he request that his work be reviewed?

I don't know how the review process works, but, from the nay-saying I am seeing here, wouldn't it be in Dr. Jones's best interests to seek a peer review?

What you say makes a lot of sense, but, in the absence of peer validation, his work will never have the stamp of approval that those who doubt him seem to need.

Another point is that his work has ramifications that make it that much more important to have peer validation.

Is there a way to contact him and ask him if he has thought of having his work reviewed?

On edit: A thought I had is that, without peer validation, he will only be taken seriously by those of us who question the OCT. So, all the work he has done becomes, basically, "preaching to the choir". I would like to see this changed.

On edit2: It has occurred to me, and, I think PG this is what you are saying, that professionals who would be qualified to review Dr. Jones's work might well be constrained by what would happen to their professional careers if they put their names "out there" as agreeing with his conclusions. In fact, I think this is the reason that in-depth investigations of the anomalies of the OCT have not (as far as the general public knows) been "professionally" questioned.

This is very discouraging.

[LARED]

58. That's nonsense

He can hire any number of engineering or technical service groups to review, validate, critique, or assess his work.

It would not be overly expensive, nor difficult to find someone willing to perform this service.

[petgoat]

77. Why should he do that when he can invite criticism on the

internet and get the analysis for free?

Why don't you take a stab at it? Here, I'll put you on first base:

The fourth photo in his paper does not show what he says it does,
and besides, it's impossible.

[LARED]

78. Simple

I could waste my time rebutting much of what he says in a formal way, but as an anonymous internet poster I am easily dismissed. On the other hand if his work is formally peer reviewed or validated by an independent organization then it gains credibility.

I can assure this will never be done, because Professor Jones' work would never stand up to scrutiny and he knows it. That being said one must ask what are his true motives.

[Americus]

80. Same could be asked about OCT'ers here

"That being said one must ask what are his true motives."

Money? PROFESSOR JONES isn't being paid for his 9/11 research work. I don't know about anyone else. Do you?

[petgoat]

85. You claim Jones's work does not stand up to scrutiny.

If you had the guts you could rebut him under your own name. Nobody forces
you to limit yourself to the realm of anonymous internet poster.

Besides, if your ideas are legitimate they should stand on their own.
Internet anonymity damages credibility only when expertise is claimed
or personal anecdotes related.

[LARED]

102. This is not about me

it about how simple it is for Jones to have his work reviewed in an acceptable and credible way.

As a CT advocate you should be clamoring for him to do this, not expecting others to do it for him.

It's simple, If Jones wants credibility, he will ask to have it properly reviewed.

[petgoat]

105. It's about your claim that you could easily refute Jones, but why bother?

Simple to get peer review?

Dr. Griffin has not had one mainstream review of either of his 9/11
books. If Griffin can't even get a book review published, how is
Jones going to get a publisher to organize a peer review? Do you
have any idea what a chore and a responsibility being a reviewer
of Jones's paper would be.

[LARED]

107. You're making a mountain out of a molehill

Jones can easily get an engineering firm or technical service organization to review/validate his work.

[petgoat]

109. If that's so, why can't he get any volunteers? It's not like he's got

a $20 million budget like NIST did, or even a $600,000 one like FEMA did.

[LARED]

112. Maybe people that would review it would be

embarrassed to be associated with such faulty and shoddy work? I know I would never touch that with a ten foot pole if asked. (not that anyone would)

[petgoat]

118. Right, so first you say Jones can easily get peer reviewed, and

and then you say nobody would touch it with a ten foot pole.

You also claim you can refute Jones but you're too lazy to do it.

Give it up. Your desperation is showing.

[LARED]

120. There is a difference between getting a peer review

(something he should be able to get) and a validation by an independent organization.

At the end of the day the world will see neither, because I believe Jones is up to something else. He way too smart and has too many good resources to believe in CD.

[Americus]

121. Think he's a stealth member of a Daisy Committee? n/t

n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

132. Do we know if he has tried to obtain peer review? n/t

[elias7]

150. But there has been peer-review

On the scholars for 911 truth website, Jones' paper as well as a Griffith paper are listed as having been peer-reviewed.
Additionally, a link to a peer-reviewed online journal is given. "The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal covering the whole of research related to 9/11/2001."

[mirandapriestly]

51. Oh God,

now you've got a degree in physics...:eyes:.

[SidDithers]

59. University of Toronto, BSc 1992, Specialist Physics with Math minor...

You wanna talk elementary particles? Quantum mechanics? Electricity and magnetism? Mass spectrometry? X-ray diffraction? I mean, it's been a few years, and I might have to pull out a few textbooks, but I figure I haven't forgotten too much. How 'bout you, miranda? Are we playing who's got the biggest degree?

All that means nothing, however, because the collapse of the WTC's is not, for the most part, a physics problem. It's a materials and engineering one. And that is why Dr. Jones is just as unqualified to write about it as I am.

Now, from some of the questionable shit that you've posted here, I can surmise that you've got little to no scientific training, as well as little understanding of the scientific method, or how research is conducted. That doesn't mean that you're not entitled to your opinion - but do be aware that bad science is bad science, regardless of your intentions.

Sid

[petgoat]

64. The collapse is certainly a physics problem.

How would an engineer explain the energetic expulsion of the dust?

NIST's thesis of inward-bowed columns is a product of their ignorance
of the refractive properties of heated air that caused the illusion of
bowing.

How does a structural engineer explain the molten metal in the basements?

How does a structural engineer explain the squibs or the flashes of light?

[LARED]

66. A couple of engineers (plus others) have provided

very plausible scenarios to explain what you call "energetic expulsion of the dust." You just don't like the explanation because it does not fit into the CT'er world view.

Also, I would ask a materials engineer or metallurgist about the molten materials, and I would ask an expert in video technology to explain the flashes of light. You need to ask the right people for technical advise, not the most expert sounding.

[petgoat]

72. You need to ask the right people

What engineers have plausibily explained the dust, and where?

I would ask a materials engineer or metallurgist about the molten materials

So would I. Unfortunately neither NIST nor FEMA saw fit to provide one with a sample
and ask them about it. I thought the molten metal was an urban legend until Dr. Jones
investigated and found the reports credible.

I would ask an expert in video technology to explain the flashes of light.

The ones I was thinking of were observed by eyewitnesses, not caught on video.

[LARED]

79. You forget

I'm an engineer and have on a number of occasions provided quite mundane and easily understood reasons for the dust. You choose to dismiss those reasons.

It's a free county

[petgoat]

84. I must have missed your plausible explanations for the dust.

"The offices were dusty" is the one I saw most recently floated but not, I think,
by you.

If the engine of pulverization is impact and grinding, and if impact removes the
engine of expulsion how do you get the expulsion?

[LARED]

89. I really don't want to get back into a lengthly discussion

about the obvious, but consider that the tower were something like 90% air. Air that was trapped inside, that had to go somewhere when floors started pancaking down.

[Americus]

91. In other words, NO, he has no plausible explanation. Ergo the response

composed of circular reasoning and simultaneously making an attempted escape by way of changing the subject. Exactly what you'd expect an engineer of his distinction to do.

[LARED]

94. Do you have any personal standards that

dictate what you post is relevant or makes sense? Just wondering

[petgoat]

95. "Air that was trapped inside, that had to go somewhere"

Right. Collapsing floors expelled air. I understand that. A bellows is an intuitively
obvious concept.

So imagine this. Put a bellows on a slab of concrete. Smash the bellows down so hard that it
pulverizes the concrete. Certainly the bellows expells air. How does it expell concrete
dust?

You guys haven't got a leg to stand on, and it's only going to become more clear over the
next few months. Give it up while you still can.

[Bolo Boffin]

97. Repeat the process.

Place another slab of concrete below the setup you gave. Place another bellows on top of that.

The first smashdown: air goes out, concrete pulverized into dust.

Second smashdown: bellows surrounded by concrete dust, air goes out, carries dust within, concrete below pulverized into dust.

Hey, let's throw some freefalling steel chunks into the mix to really get the blender going.

[petgoat]

106. Doesn't work. The concrete was poured in a steel pan.

If you get pancaking that yields pulverization, the pan remains intact and thus the dust is
not available to the bellows below.

If the the floors fall one side at a time so the pan is penetrated, you don't get the dust.
Instead you get chunks. Have you seen any pictures of chunks or slabs of concrete on the
WTC pile? Governor Pataki said there were none--that all the concrete was turned to dust.

The only pictures that have been shown in this forum of surviving concrete were from the
basement levels.

[Bolo Boffin]

113. Ah jeez.

The pan tips over, and the cake mix spills out, you big silly. Concrete dust everywhere.

[petgoat]

115. The dust was expelled explosively. There's no mechanism

for the expulsion.

Once again, imagine building a machine that could grind a concrete
membrane into dust, a membrane restrained under vinyl flooring or carpet.
You slam another concrete membrane on it and grind the two together using
LARED's nice particle-board, steel truss, file-cabinet grinding powder,
and it pulverizes the concrete and shoots it out from between the two
membranes with great force. The vinyl and the carpet must be vaporized or
turned to dust too.

There is no machine that can do that. The act of grinding precludes the
forcible ejection.

[Bolo Boffin]

129. So how does thermate turn carpet into dust? n/t

[petgoat]

130. The same way a heat-weakened collapse does, I guess.

Whatever turned the concrete into dust turned the carpet into dust too.

[LARED]

100. I doubt air is responsible for pulverizing the concrete

It was the floors above and below impacting each other with all the stuff in the middle acting as a grinding media. The joists under the concrete floor from above impacting the walls, furniture, cabinets, door frames, piping, ducting, etc, below it, then hitting the concrete floor on the next floor. That does not include any core steel in the mix. The concrete floor was a lightweight non-reinforced mix not designed for impact strength.

If you recall the floor joist clip were all bent downward indicating the perimeter walls held for a few moments as the debris built up pressure, blowing out windows just below the collapse line. This scenario also fits perfectly with what is observed in the videos that day.

This is information you've had for a long time, so I am curious why you disregard it?

[petgoat]

108. I didn't say it was. My point was to disconnect the explusion of

air from the grinding and pulverizing. First the air is expelled, then you get grinding.

So you expect me to believe that a bunch of particleboard desks and computers ground a
(lightweight) concrete floor into dust and then in the last few inches of its fall the upper
floor blew all that dust, which was restrained under a vinyl membrane or carpeting, out the
windows?

[LARED]

114. You can think harder that that. Try again (n/t)

[petgoat]

117. In other words, you don't expect me to believe you, but you want me to

think you do.

[LARED]

122. No, I was hoping you would apply critical thinking skills

for a change and figure out that between the floors there was lots of steel from the hundreds of joists, steel cabinets, walls, piping, ducting, etc, that you seem quite desperate to ignore in the calculus behind how the concrete floors got "pulverized"

[petgoat]

125. You're shifting the issue. The question is not "Can steel trusses and

sprinkler piping mash up the floor?" The question is: "How does this mashed
up floor get volcanically ejected --especially when it's restrained under vinyl
flooring and rugs?


It occurs to me that an artificially intelligent rhetorical algorithm generator
that allowed a computer to read a post and generate diversionary and obfuscatory
responses would be very useful to some government agencies. Responses that were
vaguely contraditory to the target post and perplexing and sometimes halfway
wise-sounding would be very disruptive.

Pretense to a Socratic dialog would aid the efficiency and credibility of such
a thing.

[LARED]

126. So you tell me. Where did the air go? (n/t)

[petgoat]

127. The air went into the core area and maybe blew out some

windows. (Since the tower was built for 155 mph winds, the windows
were pretty robust.)

Where did the air go? is not the question.
What ground up the concrete? is not the question.

What expelled the dust? is the question.

How did the dust get conjoined with the air when the dust was
restrained under vinyl flooring and rugs?

In post 66 you said there were plausible scenarios for the
energetic expulsion of dust.

89: You said you have provided them yourself.

100: You shifted the discussion to the undisputed pulverization of concrete

114: Your snarky non-response

122: Your even snarkier non-response with further allusion to the non-issue
of the pulverization

126: Now you shift to the undisputed expulsion of air.


If this is the best you can do, how can you expect me to have faith in your
evaluation of the plausibility of a dust-ejecting scenario from some un-named
authority?

Your desperation is showing.

[LARED]

136. What expelled the dust? is the question.

The answer is air. The air mixed with all the stuff being smashed into little pieces is blown out the windows as the building collapses. Why this simple concept is difficult for you to grasp is inexplicable

[petgoat]

137. What is inexplicable is for you ro fail to recognize that the

as the 86th floor collapses the air is expelled from the 85th floor
air space before the 85th floor is pulverized. The 85th floor then
collapses, expelling the air from the 84th floor. No collapsing
floor can expell its own pulverized concrete. No collapsing floor
can expell the pulverized concrete of any other floor.

Please explain the mechanism by which you believe the air expells the
pulverized concrete.

[LARED]

138. Questions

Are you advocating that each floor expelled all of the dust and debris before the collapse moved to the next floor?

If you had to guess, how many floors collapsed before perimeter columns failed? To be clear, if you see dust ejecting from floor 80, how many floors of perimeter columns are above it?

[petgoat]

139. "Are you advocating that each floor expelled all of the dust and debris

before the collapse moved to the next floor?"

Absolutely. There's only one mechanism for air expulsion:
floor n+1 falling ten feet to impact floor n.

Once a floor is torn loose to become part of the birdsnest
debris mass there is no more air expulsion. Further impacts
will only poof a little dust out the edges. We're talking
about a layer of dust between two steel plates (and restrained
by vinyl flooring or rugs).

Imagine a dusty rug. Sandich it between plywood plates. Hit
it with a rug beater. Will great clouds of dust come
streaming out the edges of the sandwich?

As to the standing column height, I don't know, and don't
see its relevance to the question of the engine of the
expulsion of air.

[LARED]

140. Let's try this again

When the floor above breaks loose, hundreds of insulated joists attached to the concrete floor are going to impact walls, cabinets, furniture, the drop ceiling, in the space below before it get to the concrete floor below.

Where does all that debris go to?

[petgoat]

141. It gets ground into the floor. What's your point? nt

[LARED]

142. My point?

You are making my point crystal clear. Thanks.

[petgoat]

143. Point? What's that?

Making your point crustal clear? Then it would appear that your point is
to waste the time of people who read your posts, while making it appear
that you have sagacious thoughts you are simply too exalted to share with us.

[hack89]

144. You just described a perfect mechanism ..

for turning unreinforced lightweight concrete in powder. You really think the floors would remain intact?

[LARED]

145. If Socrates had you for a student he would have stuck

with Masonry. So you are either being deliberately obtuse or you're playing dumb.

On the slim chance you don't get it, let me spell it out.

Starting with a floor. It is lightweight concrete over steel pans supported by hundreds of insulated steel joistS. The steel pans would likely be insulated on the bottom as well.

This floor falls. It first hits the tops of interior walls perhaps two feet below. The wallboard is pulverized, the insulation is pulverized. The wood or steel studs and sills are busted up. The concrete floor starts to break up. Next is the drop ceiling made of pressed fiber. In between all of this there are sprinkler pipeS and HVAC ducting. So far the floor has fallen about two or three feet.

Next what is left of the floor joists, floor, studs, ceiling, hits file cabinets, furniture, door frames, Get the picture. At some point the windows blow out from the pressure of the air trying to escape. The dust and debris created by the falling floor is now blowing out the windows with the air.

Get it?

[dailykoff]

146. Hey look, pancakes!

Goes great with Kool-Aid! :9

[LARED]

147. PG, where did you go? (n/t)

[Americus]

74. Who is the "odd couple" you place so much faith in?

Claiming to be some kind of engineer (train?) and responding to a very reasonable question, framed in direct language, by saying some unnamed odd couple and "others" (other OCT'ers) have provided an answer (aka homespun SPIN) raises a question about whether the OCT'er lacks confidence in the OCT position.
At the least, it shows that a self-claimed engineer is unable to come to grips with the many unanswered, indeed unanswerable questions that totally undermine the credibility of the OCT.

[SidDithers]

70. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, petgoat?...

or were you being dishonest in addressing my post.

I said:

the collapse of the WTC's is not, for the most part, a physics problem
(emphasis added, to help you)

Yes, physics is involved - some classical mechanics, certainly some thermal physics. But the real nitty-gritty of the collapse is all about materials science and load mechanics. And that is the purview of engineering.

And your engineering degree is from where?

Sid

[petgoat]

73. The fact that I disagree with you is not evidence of a failure of

comprehension.

The collapse would have been a materials problem and an engineering problem
had the steel been available for study.

Since it is not, and since FEMA and NIST have produced mutually contradictory
reports that they may well know are dishonest (FEMA at least had the excuse of
a stingy budget, but NIST has none), and since not one structural expert
engineer will challenge NIST (the MIT team won't even defend their theory)
it is left to Dr. Jones to step up to the challenge.

As long as the blueprints remain a secret, no structural engineer is likely to
come forward. The greatest criticism of the inadequacies of the NIST report
and the FEMA report is their unscientific nature and, in my opinion, the
dishonesty of their failure to express frustration that access to Ground Zero
was restricted during the cleanup and the steel that would have told the tale
was destroyed.

[mirandapriestly]

98. Uh, doesn't Canada have any of it's own

political issues? I really resent you trying to tell me what is happening in my own country. Especially since you don't really seem to know anything about it. Not only that, but why would someone in Canada spend hours out of each day posting abusive posts to Americans because you support the Bush administration and corporate media version of events on 9-11? I noticed also that you have another morphing personality. I like the name with the matching picture of the character - oh I get it, he's Canadian. It's like you select them from a group of choices. "i'll take this one I guess"
Oh. a bachelors, big deal,although I still doubt it.
The MO of you guys seems to be to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, no one takes me seriously, I post questionable stuff, bla bla bla. But then why do you post to me if that is what you think?
Ever heard that song by Maria Muldaur -Baby, you're just a three dollar bill? (I'm not saying that you are a three dollar bill it's just a hypothetical question.)

and since when is heat and fire not a physics issue? yeah, sure you have a physics degree...

[SidDithers]

103. Your ignorance is astounding, miranda...

or did you think only Americans were killed on 9/11?

Edit: And I've been posting here for 4 years, and have almost never mentioned what my educational background was - because it's never been really relevant to the discussion. However, in reply to a post into the differences between Fleischman and Pons' cold-fusion work, and Jones' research into muon-catalyzed fusion, it was relevant. And I still maintain that my bachelors degree gives me an understanding of how proper research is conducted, submitted, peer-reviewed, and published.

Good science starts from a position of doubt, yet I've never seen you be skeptical of a single idea, no matter how fantastic, that has been posted in this forum by one of the 911 truthers. To you, any explanation that is not the "OCT" is equal in its merits. But you're just wrong. Everything is not possible.

Sid

[petgoat]

110. Your physics degree is not relevant to understanding that

Jones was not part of the the Pons-Flesichmann team. Any bright child can
understand that.

As to your understanding of good science, your failure to express outrage at
the insultingly bad science of the NIST report and the rotten research of the
9/11 Commission brings much doubt to that claim.

[SidDithers]

111. You do know that P&F and Jones were about to joint announce...

their work, right? And then P&F scooped Jones, by announcing a day earlier than the agreed upon date?

It's not like they didn't have any contact, petgoat. Two teams of fusion researchers, both working in Utah? Here's a paper written by Jones himself, detailing the communications and collaborative efforts between himself and P&F.

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/131history.html

B. Jones offered to cooperate with Pons and Fleischmann

Prof. Jones recommended that the University of Utah's proposal be approved, despite his unresolved reservations about the theoretical underpinnings. He also suggested to R. Gajewski that he inform Pons and Fleischmann that Jones has been doing related work on cold fusion since 1986 and that perhaps a cooperative effort between the nearby universities (BYU and University of Utah) would be desirable. Jones pointed out that the techniques of the two efforts (e.g. neutron detection at BYU and calorimetric measurements at the University of Utah) were complementary and that the research effort could be benefitted by cooperation.

and

B3. Pons and Fleishmann visited Brigham Young University laboratory, 23 February 1989

Finally, on 23 February, 1989, Pons and Fleishmann came to BYU to visit Jones and his colleagues in the BYU Underground Laboratory. Pons and Fleishmann were shown the neutron spectrometer and the neutron-energy spectra which it produced, including calibration and actual data distributions. In particular, we openly pointed out the significant fusion neutron signal observed in our data. We also discussed some of our geological evidence for cold fusion (tritium in volcanic gases). In the exchange of information, Fleishmann showed us one of their electrochemical cells, although he indicated that this particular one was one that did not work. We invited them to bring their (working) apparatus to BYU to verify its operation with our neutron spectrometer. They agreed, and the date of 26 February was set for the test.

and

B4. Researchers agreed to work toward simultaneous publication

Over lunch at BYU that day (23 February 1989), Jones told Pons and Fleishmann that the BYU group was preparing to publish their data and offered to let them publish simultaneously. Dr. Jones reports that when he made the offer to allow the University of Utah researcher to publish simultaneously with the BYU report, he was attempting to establish an open and cooperative relationship. The University of Utah researchers did not come back to the BYU laboratory to test their equipment on 26 February as agreed. Rather, they explained that morning (via telephone) that a graduate student had had to travel to a funeral, and said that they would plan to come at the end of the week. But they did not come then, either. Subsequently, a meeting was proposed by University of Utah President Chase Peterson for 6 March 1989, to be held at BYU with the chief scientists and Presidents of the two universities present.

and then there's this

The University of Utah contingent expressed great concern about Jones' speaking at the May meeting in Baltimore. In particular, University of Utah President Peterson suggested strongly that it would be desirable for Jones not to give the talk. Dr. Jones replied that he was shocked that Pres. Peterson would suggest that he give up an invited APS-meeting talk on the BYU work, and Pres. Peterson finally agreed that he would not ask Jones to cancel his talk. Instead, it was agreed that the two groups would submit papers SIMULTANEOUSLY and quickly (in about three or four weeks time) in order to have the papers accepted and hopefully published before Jones' scheduled talk on May 4, 1989. It was also agreed by all that no public disclosure of the research would be made by either group prior to the simultaneous submission of the papers. In keeping with this understanding, Jones said that he would cancel a previously scheduled physics department colloquium at BYU, set for 8 May (two days later), and he did so. Jones also cancelled a talk by a graduate student (Stuart Taylor) on the BYU cold fusion research scheduled at the BYU Spring Research Conference on 11 March 1989, in order to strictly adhere to this agreement.

In subsequent discussions between Jones, Pons, and Fleischmann, it was agreed that the precise day for the joint submission would be on 24 March 1989. On 21 March Dr. Pons called Dr. Jones and the joint submission date of 24 March was re-confirmed. Dr. Pons indicated that the University of Utah paper was ready but assured Jones that it would not be submitted earlier than 24 March. No mention whatsoever was made of the University of Utah press conference held on 23 March 1989, one day prior to the agreed date for releasing the information jointly, or of the University of Utah paper on cold fusion already submitted on 11 March 1989, to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry by Pons and Fleischmann.

(Emphasis added)


Jones may not have been part of the team, but they weren't exactly working independantly. So, now it's been shown they were collaborating, don't you think a physics background might be handy in determining the differences in their work?

Sorry for the long post, but there's lots of information at that link, and I wanted to make sure the relevant parts got seen.

Sid

[petgoat]

116. I know the story. Pons and Flesichmann were competitors of

Jones, which is why they jumped the gun and issued excessive claims.
Which is irrelevant to the point.

My intention was not to impugn your understanding of science, but your
expressed motivation of debunking bad science. Your failure to express
outrage at the insultingly bad science of the NIST report and the rotten
research of the 9/11 Commission brings much doubt to that claim.

[SidDithers]

119. I don't find the NIST science (what I've read) nearly...

as insultingly bad as the ST911 science.

Sid

[petgoat]

124. And pray tell, what is so bad about the st911 science? nt

Given that NIST was funded like a B-1 bomber and Jones is funded like a hang glider,
it seems to me a miracle that Jones can fly at all.

[Grateful for Hope]

133. Sid

You know as well as I do that 9/11 was a US thing. Did you hear your head-of-state tell all of you that your lives will henceforth be different because of 9/11? Did you have an analogous act to the Patriot Act enacted within weeks of those supposed attacks enacted in your country?

[Jazz2006]

135. Sid, never in a thousand years

will you get a rational response from miranda on anything of substance ~ her expertise seems to be limited to making unsubstantiated claims that posters with whom she does not agree must be lying.

As an aside, though, nice to see that you're a U of T alumni ~ some of my very best friends are UofT folks :D

(Osgoode here, undergrad at Mac)

[Americus]

55. Got a link that proves YOU, not someone else, has a physics degree?

Your message lacks credibility unless and until you provide verifiable evidence of your claim to have a degree in physics. And even if could provide it, your other claim is pure speculation.

[SidDithers]

60. Nope...

don't really care whether you believe me or not, anyway.

Sid

[petgoat]

65. The old appeal to illegitimate authority argument.

"I, anonymous internet poster, am right because I am right and who cares what
you think anyway?"

[LARED]

67. How ironic (n/t)

[mirandapriestly]

99. Why is that ironic?

I have never seen PG make any claims about his academic background or any other unprovable qualifications. He doesn't need to, his posts stand on their own. He gets the better of you every time, all of the yous.

[LARED]

101. Did you read what PG wrote?

It works this way, PG writes something about someone else, that applies equally well to PG, ie "kettle meet pot" I comment it's ironic, you pipe in with something completely unrelated so I assume you did not read it or fail to understand.

[petgoat]

21. WOW is right. What a lot of nervous laughter. nt

[SidDithers]

23. I'll believe it when his study has been peer reviewed

replicated by another source, and published in a scientific journal. Until then, it's just more of Dr. Jones' pseudo-science.

Or do scientific discoveries of this nature usually use Portland Indymedia as their vehicle to publish?

Sid

[iconoclastNYC]

32. Somehow I doubt you'll believe it then.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[SidDithers]

38. Why would I not believe a peer-reviewed article...

published in a journal like Phys. Rev. Letters, or The Journal of Structural Engineering, or any of the other myriad of actual peer-reviewed engineering or science research journals out there? Do you have a problem with the quality of refereeing in journals such as those? I certainly don't. If Dr. Jones' paper passed peer-review in a reputable journal, and was published on a date other than April 1, within the next year, then I'll be the first to reverse my opinion of him, and I'll make a $100 donation to ST911.

Now, if a year passes and his paper still hasn't passed peer review, will you make a $100 donation to the National Youth Science Foundation?

Or are there none so blind as those who think that a PhD makes a person an expert?

Sid

[NYC]

16. When Bush speaks, he is totally unencumbered by reality.

Not much constructive criticism of your post here.

I don't think we'll ever know what happened because much of the evidence was dispersed before there could be an investigation. That's unfortunate, but I believe it is irreversible.

Without an investigation, there will always be speculation. There should be. That's what happens when you pass up the opportunity to investigate.

[dailykoff]

17. Fortunately, there's plenty of evidence.

The collapses themselves are evidence, and they're sufficiently preserved in numerous video recordings for all the analysis necessary.

What's needed are a couple of well-connected engineers to admit that the explanations proposed by FEMA and the NIST are utterly ridiculous fairy tales. None of those three buildings could have come down without the use of very powerful explosives and/or other demolition devices.

Good luck finding anybody willing to risk being Wellstoned, though.

[NYC]

18. I don't mean videos; I mean concrete and steel.

Quickly shipped to India, taken to a landfill, carted away by New Jersey truckers. They got rid of it very quickly.

[dailykoff]

19. Yes, very unfortunate and highly suspicious.

And having it would be useful, but what I mean is that an airtight case for demolition can be made with no more evidence than the building specifications and the videotapes. That's why they're hiding the blueprints.

[SidDithers]

24. Where is Dr. Jones' paper announcing his test results?...

There's nothing in that indymedia article with any substance. No direct quotes. No details of the testing methods. No actual test results.

Turns out the source of the article is a radio interview with Dr. Jones, so this is a reinterpretation of old news, not a new story. From the comments at the original link:

The source of the original post was an audio interview of Dr. Steven Jones by Alex Jones (no relation). I understand the interview took place at the Chicago 911 Truth Conference earlier this month. The whole interview is of interest. Alex Jones comes off slightly as the radio "shock jocky", maybe a little to often interrupts the academic for the sake of ostensible radio drama. Dr. Jones comes off as a prudent scientist valuing accuracy over sound bite drama. But that's just my take. Listen to the whole short interview. Jones also discusses his sources for the WTC samples. I hope I have linked it adaquately, as I am cybernetically slow as well as horrid speller. http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2006/160606jones.htm

This guy certainly seems to want to do his science in the media, rather than in the lab. Not surprising, considering his association with Fleischman and Pons. Is he ever going to publish in a peer reviewed engineering or Materials Science journal? How about a physics journal?

Sid

[libertypirate]

28. Paper Link -- "Science in the media", you sure know how to sound

full of crap... Can you be honest and repent if you find you have been wrong?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[SidDithers]

30. Oh, I've read that article...

and am still waiting for it to be peer reviewed in an Engineering, Materials Science or Physical Sciences journal too.

The actual evidence of thermite / thermate is something new, however.

Doesn't the fact that there's no peer review to his research bother you? (and by peers, I don't mean economists)

To answer your question, yes, if Dr. Jones' work is ever peer reviewed and published in a mainstream Engineering, Materials Science or Physical Sciences journal, I will repent if I've find I've been wrong.

And if his work is shown to be inaccurate, and to not support the conclusions that he is deriving, will you stop claiming he's an expert and using his work as evidence?

Sid

Edit - clarification

[petgoat]

33. "there's no peer review"

Of course that bothers me. Dr. Jones's paper is on the internet for anyone to
read, and comments can be made at http://www.st911.org/ Anyone can try to
debunk Jones if they wish. I'll suppose the fact that no one has means that
they can't.

[SidDithers]

36. That's not how the science community works...

but I think you already knew that.

Sid

[petgoat]

37. Right, it works on a "until it's the cover story in Nature I haven't

got time" basis.

Instead of letting cowardly editors do you thinking for you,
why don't you try reviewing Dr. Jones's paper yourself?

Here I'll give you a start: the fourth photo (the one with the police
scooter in the foreground) can not possibly show WTC7 in the afternoon
as claimed because the shadows are all morning shadows. Furthermore,
it's an obvious fake, because by the time WTC2 collapsed (that's WTC2
debris on the left) WTC7's south face would have been sunlit.

And LARED, I don't need a PhD in astrophysics to be able to say so.

[SidDithers]

41. Cowardly editors do my thinking?...

:rofl:

Why are you calling them cowardly, petgoat?

And yes, since I'm not a structural engineer, and I've never studied materials science, I am going to let these editors do my thinking for me, in areas in which they are expert.

Are you saying that you don't trust any expert? Did you wire your own home, or have an educated and trained electrician do that for you? Ever go to the doctor, or are you a home diagnostician? You do all your own car repairs too? Every day, you rely on the expertise of others to do your thinking for you. You're a fool if you think otherwise.

So, when do we see petgoat's peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Google Scientists?

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

45. There IS a Journal of Google Scientists

If you want to call it that...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=WTC+collapse&btnG=Search

I know what you mean, and I'm ROFL myself at it. But Google does do searches of scholarly publications. Here's a neat one:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

And this one:

http://www.math.vt.edu/people/gao/physics/mechanics/wtc_zpb.pdf

[SidDithers]

46. Hehe, it's the end of the day and my mind is mush...

You're right, of course, I shouldn't be denigrating the serious work done by researchers using google as a tool.

Cheers. :hi:

Sid

[Americus]

56. As it was at dawn. n/t

n/t

[SidDithers]

61. Got anything of substance to contribute, Americus?...

Or are you still obsessed with "paid shills".

Sid

[petgoat]

63. "Are you saying that you don't trust any expert?"

You are not a structural engineer, so you will let the FEMA experts tell you the
truss clips failed and the perimeter columns bowed out, and you'll let the NIST
experts tell you the truss clips were so freaking strong that saggy floors bowed
the perimeter columns in. And it won't bother you one bit that the blueprints
remain a secret, and that neither NIST nor FEMA will show you a picture of the
truss clips or release the blueprints of them. And it won't bother you that
the hat truss failed with no conceivable cause.

Wiring, basic medical diagostics, and car repairs are well within my own
competence, and I don't need experts to do these things for me. I don't call
a plumber when my sink won't drain, and I can't understand why any intelligent
person would.

And I certainly don't need "experts" to do my thinking for me. I have had bad
luck with experts. The world is full of people who have worked very hard to
achieve their very limited level of incompetence. They are also highly motivated
to exaggerate the complexity of the issues. An example: my ex-wife's tax
preparer, who gleefully presents her with a four-page computer-generated worksheet
on the foreign taxes paid on her investments as evidence of his indispensibility,
while failing to point out that if she had simply failed to complete this section,
she would have forfeited $3.00.

[SidDithers]

69. OK, petgoat, you don't need experts..

Must be nice to have the enough free time in your life to become your own expert in EVERYTHING.

How's that home dentistry working out for you?

And when do we see your peer-reviewed paper about controlled demolition?

Sid

[petgoat]

75. Your all-or-nothing thinking is not very logical

First you try to claim that if I consult a doctor or employ an electrician or an
auto mechanic that I am letting them do my thinking for me.

Then when I object to your poor choice of examples, you claim that I don't need
experts.

Such extreme conclusions speak poorly for the legitimacy of your opinions.

[SidDithers]

71. Speaking of Nature...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6218/abs/338737a0.html

Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter


S. E. Jones*, E. P. Palmer*, J. B. Czirr*, D. L. Decker*, G. L. Jensen*, J. M. Thorne*, S. F. Taylor* & J. Rafelski†


* Departments of Physics and Chemistry, Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602, USA
† Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA


When a current is passed through palladium or titanium electrodes immersed in an electrolyte of deuterated water and various metal salts, a small but significant flux of neutrons is detected. Fusion of deuterons within the metal lattice may be the explanation.

If Jones' fusion research is good enough for Nature, why isn't his ST911 research?

Sid

Edit: wording

[petgoat]

76. Is ANYONE's 9/11 research good enough for Nature? nt

[LARED]

40. Based on the response it appears he/she

does not know how it works.

[SidDithers]

42. But that's never stopped them before...

:)

Sid

[quickesst]

52. Let me use a simple analogy...

Two detectives walk into a room. One man is on the floor shot and stabbed. The other man, a priest, is standing over him with a bloody knife in one hand, and a smoking gun in the other. They both see the same evidence. The first detective tells the priest with the gun and knife, "Noone saw you do this, but the evidence seems pretty convincing that you did. An investigation will get to the bottom of it. The second detective asks the man with the gun and the knife, "Did you commit this crime?" The priest with the weapons in hand says, "No sir, another man was here and committed the crime, then right before you entered, he forced the gun and knife into my hand, and slipped out the window. Besides, I'm a priest. I took an oath to God to tell the truth." The first detective mimics a furtive look and concludes. "It's obvious to anyone that you were not involved. Even though the evidence is strong, a priest couldn't possibly do this. The only other solution is that the man who was here is guilty for this murder, and any investigation concerning your involvement is not necessary. You're free to go." And that my friends, in a nutshell, stripped of it's strawmen and hundred dollar words, is the entire OCT argument. Thanks.:hi:
quickesst

[LARED]

54. That's a great analogy except for one thing

the 9/11 CT community has no bloody knife or smoking gun.

You don't even have a butter-knife and a water pistol.

[Americus]

57. You left out a letter in your description. I know, end of the day etc.

"the 9/11 OCT" Brigade

[quickesst]

62. And...

what does the OCT crowd have? Of course, a priest.:evilgrin:

[LARED]

68. A priest? What are you talking about? n/t

[quickesst]

83. You're really...

not going to make me explain something so simple and obvious are you? Especially after I've pegged you as one of the more astute truth-depressers. Come on.Thanks.
quickesst

[LARED]

88. Sorry but your ramblings are, well

incoherent. I've no clue about a priest. Maybe it's me but I doubt it.

[quickesst]

104. OK....

The second detective decides, that because the man is a priest(US government), it is just too much for the detective(OCT crowd) to handle to believe he could perpetrate such a crime, although the circumstantial evidence points to his complicity. And two plus two is four. This should allay your "doubt". Thanks.
quickesst

[LARED]

123. Now I get i t!!!!!!!!!!!

BTW, when did school let out? You showing up with your junior league trolling and summer beginning just seem too close for comfort.

[quickesst]

134. I'm sorry....

You're just mad cuz you didn't get it, aren't you?:hug: Feel better? Oh yeah, I've never been called a "junior league troll" before. I'll add it to my list. Thanks.:hi:
quickesst

While I'm at it, the column was definately cut to control the angle of the piece falling. Trouble is, I wouldn't want to be around when it fell. If you cut a column like that, why take a chance on it NOT falling as predicted, and simply secure the top with a crane, cut half the steel by following the logic of the closest distance, etc. and simply have the crane lift it straight up, thereby controlling the cut piece %100 of the time? I'm just having a hard time imagining myself standing next to that column, or anywhere above or around it when that last inch of metal is cut. The angle cut may provide general direction, but there is the possibility of the bottom kicking out, and the top cantelevering back over. Even if it was secured by a crane, the angle cut would provide unnecessary side to side motion. But that's just me. Thanks again.

[smoogatz]

81. The column in the photo appears to have been cut with a torch.

You'd cut it at an angle so you could control the direction it fell--just like cutting a tree. There's nothing in the photo to suggest it wasn't cut by clean-up workers long after the collapse.

[SidDithers]

82. There was a thread about this photo here months ago...

and the same conclusion was reached - that the column had been cut with a torch during the clean-up. I wish I could find the thread.

Sid

Edit: found it
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=83573

[DemInDistress]

131. explain this sid.. office fires (rotf)

that's white hot..

[m0nkeyneck]

86. at the same time...

there's nothing in the photo to suggest it WAS cut by clean-up workers

[smoogatz]

87. True. It could've been cut by space aliens. Or maybe by a dragon.

A magic one, that can fly and turn itself into a beautiful princess. Nothing in the photo would suggest it wasn't.

[Americus]

90. Ut oh. Your post makes use of the common disinfo/truth suppression

tactic of magnifying a point way out of proportion and then making a mockery of it. Is that the reason why you did that? Do you have any co-workers here? (whether or not you know their "real" names)

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[m0nkeyneck]

93. ...um ok

we aren't here for discussion are we

l8r

[petgoat]

96. And can't afford more than one-line efforts. nt

[smoogatz]

128. In fact I am.

Not so sure I can say the same about you. I was pointing out the obvious fallacy underlying your post (i.e., that just because a picture appears to show one thing, that doesn't prove that another, entirely different--though considerably less likely--thing hasn't happened instead), in what I thought was a humorous way. Apparently neither intent was understood by those who responded. In fact, the photo in question does not, on its own, prove that the steel column it depicts was not cut by space aliens or a magical dragon. Just because something's inarguable doesn't mean it's true. Sorry if I failed to express that clearly enough for you.

[mhatrw]

148. So the idea that it was cut by workers after the fact is supported by

what?

Your subjective estimation of what's more likely -- which is that 10 Arabs caused the only three skyscrapers in history that have ever collapsed due to fire to crumble into pieces with their two magic planes?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

149. kick

http://wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/energia3.htm

[wildbilln864]

151. And Jones has a new site...

here!

:hi: