Steven Jones analyzes steel from WTC

[mirandapriestly]

I guess this was presented at the recent conference, I don't understand why no one has posted about it, one poster did mention it. This link has audio where he is interviewed by Alex Jones, it is also on the Prison Planet web site.
He was having a hard time getting cooperation from NIST (why would they not cooperate? (my wcomment)), so he put the word out for anyone who had steel samples from the WTC. A sculptor was working on a piece in a memorial park found a big glob of hardened molten metal and sent it to him. He analyzed it and found it to contain molten iron which is what you get from a thermite reaction. He also found sulfur "in abundance", which leads him to believe they used "Thermate" a brand of thermite which contains sulfur. Sulfur lowers the melting temperature which allows the thermite to cut through steel like a knife through butter. Also, another product of thermite is white ash and of course, molten metal which he observed flowing out of the 80th floor just before the collapse. NIST tried to say it was aluminum, but he has worked with aluminum and it is silver, this was yellow hot.
He also says the diagonal cuts are what they would have used because if they used a straight cut, the column would stay in place, diagonal there would be no support to hold the column steady above the cut. (There are pictures of the diagonal cuts, but workmen were cutting the steel on site I wonder if they will try to say this is when the thermite was used? my comment in parenthesis)
He said thermite is placed in a cylinder then ignited, which could be done by a radio signal. Then the product shoots straight out - (that is what people are seeing when they say they see "squibs".(my comment in parenthesis)) .
He said thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, but there is a type of thermite - Super Thermite that is an explosive, it is ground super fine and will act as an explosive and an incendiary.
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/15947/Finally_the_proof_Thermate_used_to_destroy_WTC

this page has the link to the audio with Dr Jones.

[StealthyDragon]

1. Great interview.......

That cuts it! (to coin a phrase)


"Because I don't want my grandchildren pissing on my grave!"
< retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert M. Bowman on why he [br />joined the Scholars For 911 Truth]

[mirandapriestly]

2. Good one.

Is this why the huge onset of trolls? I was trying to figure out what was up.

[StealthyDragon]

27. I'm hearing that the neocon

talking heads are already spinning the story that the Arabs planted the explosives.

I've been saying for so time now that congress had to be fed an alternate lie. It's all going to come to pass.

[mirandapriestly]

33. If that is true then this research is probably on the right track.nt

[petgoat]

90. I've been suggesting all along that al Qaeda could have

planted the explosives. Frankly, the only way I could examine the
controlled demolition evidence with any kind of scientific detachment
was to decouple the CD hypothesis from the who-dunnit issue.

If your consideration of the evidence is colored either by your desire
to hang the Bushcists for it or your unwillingness to consider that
they might have been involved (and most people fall in that category)
then your objectivity is tainted.

Of course there's a third possibility that neither al Qaeda nor Bush
did it.

[Grateful for Hope]

91. That third alternative

is something that could very well be possible.

Good point!

[atfqn]

148. While there is a lot of discussion about bombs and such.

I found some videos that are pretty interesting. The first is a british tv show that plays with thermite - seen here:
http://www.yikers.com/video_thermite_destroys_all.html

The second is a video of tower two falling:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11

Now if you watch the first one and then the first minute or so of the second, it seems there are some similarities... Look at the windows below the impact - that doesnt look like jet fuel or papers falling. There is definite falling mass that stays hot. Maybe I am reading too far into it but based on this guys research and pictures - it seems hard to believe molten steel from ~60 or so stories up was able to make a perfect diagonal cut across this main support at ground level as seen here:

[LARED]

3. Wow, a real smoking gun

Ha, gotta.

He analyzed it and found it to contain molten iron which is what you get from a thermite reaction. He also found sulfur "in abundance",

For those that may not know, structural steel is roughly 95%+ iron, and around 0.3 to 0.5 % sulfur. So I'm stunned that the professor is surprised to find molten iron in steel, so surprised that the only way he can figure it got there was via "thermate." I am very suspicion that he fails to quantify the levels of sulfur after it was analyzed. An analysis would provide a chemical composition of the specimen. He should be able to say it is X percent sulfur. Rather he just calls if abundant, whatever that means.

The guy is a fraud. He is not interesting in why the towers fell. He is up to something else.

[mirandapriestly]

4. Yeah, I'm sure BYU hires a "fraud" as a physics professor.

ad hominem at it's worse.

[LARED]

7. I'm sure he's a physic professor

but I am convinced he has ulterior motives in regards to the WTC. There are too many science/engineering based issues he clearly should be aware of, or can be informed about that he presents in disingenuous ways

[Americus]

14. For a minute, I thought you were talking about the "Lareds" at DU. n/t

n/t

[greyl]

11. They just fired a professor for being for gay rights.

For what it's worth.

[mirandapriestly]

34. That is sad.

It also makes me wonder why they aren't giving him more flak for this.

[LARED]

39. Here's a link about it

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Mormons_Gay_Marriage.html

[MervinFerd]

19. His credibility is questionable. Cold Fusion, Christ in America.

And, yes, it is a fair argument.

The skill and integrity of the investigator come all the time in real science.

[petgoat]

23. Dr. Jones's credibility in cold fusion is not in any doubt.

He was not part of the Pons/Fleischmann team that blew it.

Christ in MesoAmerica was an obvious lark.

[SidDithers]

29. There's no question of his credibility as far as I'm concerned...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[mirandapriestly]

36. I agree, he is definitely credible..

;)

[mirandapriestly]

6. The fact that the iron was molten, not that it was iron is the issue

I might have not said molten,it was late. These are not his final findings, I'm sure he will tell us what "in abundance" means but I'm sure it is not 0.3 to 0.5 %.
Being called a fraud - I'm sure he is prepared for such attacks from the Bush/neocon camp.

[LARED]

10. The iron was molten???

What are you talking about? Are you saying he had a sample of molten iron? How do you analysis molten iron?

[mirandapriestly]

12. It had been molten,it had reformed as

a "blob" stuck onto the column, basically.

[LARED]

13. The question then becomes

is the "blob" ferrite or is is steel. Both have "molten" iron in them.

[mirandapriestly]

17. He'll publish the results later. I don't know. nt

[SidDithers]

151. Have we seen Dr. Jones publication of his results yet?

Just wondering.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

152. Yes indeed he has! You should...

read "911 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"! He presents his case there in simple layman's terms anyone can understand. Try it! It's Chapter 3. :hi:

[Make7]

160. I believe Sid was referring to results from any test of molten metal samples.

Isn't chapter 3 of 911 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out basically just his Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse paper? I don't recall seeing any such test results anywhere in that document, perhaps you could quote the relevant passage for us. Thanks.

- Make7

[mhatrw]

30. The point was not that it had iron, but that the iron was molten.

How an office fire managed to convert steel into molten iron is, I think, the question at hand.

Do you have any potential answers?

[LARED]

38. That's not the question

It is quite unlikely that office fires melted steel. The molten materials was in theory created in the underground fires after the collapse. I say in theory because we do not know where the materials came from. Nor has Prof Jones posted the analysis.

Regrading your comment about molten iron. structural steel is about 95% iron or better, It's not clear to me how one separates the ferrite ('molten iron') from the steel (ferrite with a few percent carbon')

[mhatrw]

41. And how did steel melt in these underground fires?

Just curious.

[LARED]

42. It was very hot

How else does steel melt? (assuming it was melted steel)

[Americus]

44. "It was very hot". Can Thermite cause steel to melt? n/t

n/t

[LARED]

45. Yes, of course it does, That's one of its primary uses. (n/t)

[mhatrw]

46. So how did these underground fires get so hot?

Have any other underground urban fires ever gotten hot enough to melt steel?

[Americus]

47. No, but what OCT'ers will say is: "WTC fire was a unique situation."

That's all they CAN say. Sure, they'll embelish what is really nothing more than total speculation (i.e. total BS)in order to try and make it sound like the WTC underground fires COULD have gotten hot enough to melt steel.

What they do is no different than what advertising firms do: it's standard advertising strategy to come up with what is called in the industry - "a reason to believe". In other words: "Because it's made from ____, you COULD start feeling better right after you buy it!".

Use your common sense. Factor in everything you know about what happened at the WTC on 9/11, and ask yourself how likely is it that the entire building could collapse into its own footprint, yet underneath all that rubble there was enough OXYGEN to feed a fire that grew hot enough to melt steel.

[SidDithers]

49. Are you saying the WTC wasn't a unique situation?...

that twin 110 story office buildings are routinely hit by aircraft, catch fire and then fall down?

Sid

[Americus]

51. Oh, it was unique. That's one reason we know the OCT is a lie.

If the WTC buildings had been only, say 10 stories tall, were struck by airliners, and assuming that a fire ensued, THEN it might not be be so surprising if the buildings fell down, possibly even if they were steel structures. However, even THEN, there's no reason to think they would collapse into their own footprint.

In the case of the 110 story tall WTC buildings, the only reason why THEY collapsed into their own footprint was because they were brought down by controlled demolition. The collapse of so much material on top of that part of the underground (beneath the buildings) might not have prevented a small fire, but it certainly would have prevented a major, extremely high-temperature fire.

Haven't you studied the facts about what happened? Or, are you merely trying to earn your bones as an OCT shill?

[SidDithers]

52. Having a hard time keeping your stories straight?...

If someone skeptical of the PCT's says the events surrounding the WTC's are unique, he's an OCT shill.

If a PCT'er says the events surrounding the WTC's are unique, that's one reason they know the OCT is a lie.

Perhaps your left brain and your right brain aren't speaking to each other.

Sid

[LARED]

55. !!!!!!

:)

[Americus]

56. I just pointed out the absurdity of your claims by letting u trap yourself

n/t

[Jazz2006]

59. Indeed.

And the PCT "americus" thinks s/he "let you trap yourself"

:rofl:

Seriously, you couldn't make this stuff up.

[Americus]

67. And the OCT'er Brigade of shills/trolls pretend to not "get it"

Seriously, there are some people here that must be paid to act dumb as GW, and they're the only ones here who give media whores a good run for their money.

[LARED]

75. FWIW, the troll/shill thing is against the rules (n/t)

[Grateful for Hope]

76. But, it is ok to call those who question "Tin Hat Brigade"?

Just sayin'...

[mirandapriestly]

84. Touche' Hope

no answer of course. :eyes:

[sabbat hunter]

127. didnt collapse

look at the damage to surrounding buildings. the WTC did NOT collapse into their own footprints. if they had there would not have been damage to other buildings in the area.

have you studied the damage to surrounding buildings?

how do look at the damage to surrounding buildings and say that the WTC collapsed into their own foot prints?

[LARED]

48. How many underground urban fires have there been

besides the WTC fires?

[mhatrw]

50. I don't know.

I guess most everything about that day was unique in world history, right?

Especially the strength of the office fire, the three WTC towers collapsing in basically their footprints because of the strength of these fires, and the amazing temperatures generated by the subsequent underground fires.

With all this structural failure and urban fire temperature history being made, you would think that the physical forensic investigation of the site and metallurgical examination of the collapsed rubble would have been historically thorough and comprehensive. Wouldn't you?

[LARED]

54. Yes it was unique

Do you think it was not unique?

Especially the strength of the office fire,

The only thing unique about the strength of the fires was the large area in which they were started. No fire codes are designed to handle huge amounts of aviation fuel being ignited over such a large area. Other than that the fire quickly became normal offices fires.

the three WTC towers collapsing in basically their footprints because of the strength of these fires,

The tower collapsing into their footprints is basically an internet myth. If you mean the towers fell into their footprint because they did not tip over, you are seriously ignorant of how the WTC's were constructed and how they could fail. Tipping over is not a possiblity. (Not referring to WTC 7). The collapsed WTC 1, 2 were spread over a large distance. Also the strength of the fires had nothing to do with weather they collapsed in their footprints or tipped over.

and the amazing temperatures generated by the subsequent underground fires.

What do you find amazing about them?

[mhatrw]

57. From what I've read the WTC was designed to withstand an airplane strike.

One of the WTC towers fell within an hour. I'm wondering where the physical evidence for these history making (in area and damage wrought for pre-collapse and temperature for post-collapse) WTC fires is. I couldn't find any physical examination of molten metal from the WTC in NIST's reports, and almost no evidence of any WTC metal heated over even 200 C.

Considering the unique and history making phenomena that occurred, I'm wondering why scientists avoided a comprehensive forensic examination of the physical rubble. Any ideas?

[LARED]

61. Sure I have ideas

Your response indicates you are easily swayed by Internet mythology surrounding the 9/11 collapse. Call back after you are have seriously reviewed the investigation. See here http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm for a nice primer

Also, most serious professional investigators don't waste limited resources on idiotic ideas. It's a bit amusing that the google trained engineer/scientist/name your internet trained professional CT'er can't figure out why the hundreds of professionals; engineers and scientist, etc, working on the investigation are not performing basic forensic testing in their view.

Here's another idea, Maybe these professionals know what their doing, and those google trained professional and basically well meaning and passionate but work within a framework of ignorance.

[mhatrw]

64. You studiously avoided answering my question.

I've read the NIST reports. That's why I'm so puzzled.

Where is the physical evidence for these history making (in area and damage wrought for pre-collapse and temperature for post-collapse) WTC fires? There is no physical examination of molten metal from the WTC mentioned in NIST's reports, and almost no hard evidence that any WTC metal was heated over even 200 C.

Considering the unique and history making phenomena that occurred in these WTC fires, why wasn't a comprehensive forensic examination of the physical rubble performed? Please explain. If you think I'm mistaken, please cite any scientific reports that specify the analysis of WTC rubble that was heated over 200 C. How many NIST examined pieces of WTC rubble showed any physical evidence of being heated that much? What further scientific analyses of these pieces were made?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[SidDithers]

79. Troll Army! Troll Army!...

Booga Booga Booga!

Here, Americus, I made this just for you. Might save you some keystrokes. Use it as much as you want.



Seriously, if you got something to say, then say it. Or hit alert. But this implied "paid infiltrator" shit is getting old, and just shows the weakness of your arguments.

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

87. "Paid infiltrator" stuff, that takes me back.

There was a poster here, a long while back, called Dulce Decorum. That was part of DD's MO as well - lots of "paid OCT shill" stuff, all the time.

But Dulce was finally tombstoned. Sigh. I miss her. I guess it's good that Americus is here to pick up the slack.

[LARED]

100. I sort of miss DD

Definitely unique.

[Americus]

102. People need to know about "paid OCT shill stuff".

According to many reports I've read, about 30% (or more) of what is presented in the media as news is just articles (thinly-veiled sales pitches, propaganda, right-wing talking points, disinformation stories like the one about the about the incubators in Kuwait - that was used to galvanize support for the first U.S. invasion of Iraq etc.) written by PR firms for various clients, including the governments.

Until fairly recently, I didn't realize this, and I'm sure that the vast majority of other people don't know it either.

Do you have some obection or special sensitivity about this being pointed out?

[LARED]

72. Let me clarify

I know of no analysis performed on the molten metal by a investigation team. Frankly there is no reason for them to do that. They are investigating the collapse of the towers, not the underground fires. From an academic viewpoint I would like to see some investigative work performed as it is a very interesting subject with limited knowledge.

To your next point.

There is no physical examination of molten metal from the WTC mentioned in NIST's reports, and almost no hard evidence that any WTC metal was heated over even 200 C

That may be true. But it is not very interesting. It does not mean there was none, only that none was collected. We do know that fires in offices and the exposed steel was well over 200 C. Years of empirical fire studies in office environments establish that the temperatures in the buildings are well understood. For serious minded folks this is not even debatable.

Considering the unique and history making phenomena that occurred in these WTC fires, why wasn't a comprehensive forensic examination of the physical rubble performed?

Well comprehensive is a rather subjective term. I'd bet the folks over at the NIST would say their work is pretty comprehensive. I would agree. They are also not done studying what happened. Are you expecting a team of investigator to pour over every item removed form ground zero? How would that be done? To what purpose? So a bunch of CT'er can be satisfied that their dark weaved fantasy world of controlled demolition is true? The true of the matter is that no matter how through an investigation is performed, if it did not provide the answers you seek, you will continue asking for a more comprehensive investigation convinced in your reality.

[mhatrw]

85. I'm not convinced of anything.

It's you who are seemingly certain that the only things to learn from the close scientific examination of the physical evidence of all these historically unique events are of "academic" interest.

Personally, I feel that no matter what caused these events that much could be learned from extensive scientific examination of the physical evidence from the point of view of practical construction considerations, civil engineering theory, and pure scientific inquiry.

It makes no sense whatsoever from any scientific point of view that the NIST's only examination of the physical evidence consisted of looking to see if the primer had cracked on a few hundred pieces of rubble, confirming that only about 1% of the examined pieces ever were heated above 200 C more than an instant. IMHO, NIST did everything but examine the physical evidence, and the tiny amount of physical evidence they did examine offered no support whatsoever for any their collapse theories.

[petgoat]

93. That's a succinct, rational post, mhat. Welcome to DU! nt

[LARED]

99. You are seriously misrepresenting what the NIST

did.

[mhatrw]

104. I am? What metallurgical analyses of the collapsed WTC steel

did they perform that I missed? If NIST did more thorough metallurgical analyses of the WTC steel than I stated, I'd love to hear about them.

I think it's pretty ironic that you have concluded about me that "no matter how through an investigation is performed, if it did not provide the answers you seek, you will continue asking for a more comprehensive investigation convinced in your reality." Because it seems to me that no matter how little physical evidence NIST analyzes, how cursory these analyses are or how much these cursory physical analyses weigh against NIST's collapse theories, you appear to be inclined to quell legitimate criticism of NIST's scientific laxity.

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Here's 184 pages of analysis of the steel by NIST

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

You're welcome.

[mhatrw]

116. I've read it. To summamize:

Just 236 pieces of metal were recovered, none from WTC-7, representing just 0.25 to 0.5% of the structural steel in the buildings.

The "analysis" of this recovered steel consisted of visually inspecting it for damage and looking to see if its paint had cracked, then -- if so - furter inspecting its microstructure to see if it showed greater signs of temperature exposure.

Just 3 of the 236 pieces inspected showed signs of heating above 250 C (meaning just three showed paint cracking), and of these three, NIST says that one was exposed to these temperatures post-collapse.

No metal recovered showed exposure to 600+ C temperatures for any significant time.

The steel was also tested for yield strength, chemical composition and thermal properties and was found to be of the expected strength and composition and to have the expected thermal properties.

And that's it. That's all they did to eximine the physical evidence of the only 3 towers ever to collapse in world history -- a tragedy that cost over 2000 American lives.

[Bolo Boffin]

125. You're cursing an apple for not being an orange.

Note the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of columns exposed to fire in the towers.

Yet this is precisely what you are doing when you wave the "three samples" around without this qualification. You are misusing the data in a way to prop up your own beliefs about what happened. The evidence isn't enough to say just how hot it was in the fires, because the sample size is too small to exterpolate from this data set.

However, enough structural steel was recovered to perform the tasks at hand, which were three:

1. determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel

2. determine the quality of the steel and if it met its design requirements, and

3. analyze and provide insight into failure mechanisms for guiding the development of models of building performance and validating their output.

The models of building performance were used to develop predictions about various temperatures of structural elements, and the steel analysis was used to guide that development and help validate the results. That task was dealt with in another supplemental report, 1-6. I'm sure you've read that too. Is there anything about that one you don't like?

[mhatrw]

129. No, I'm pointing out five highly relevant facts.

1. The number of pieces of WTC steel recovered for physical examination was extremely low, and no steel was recovered for WTC-7 at all.

2. Less than 1% of the extremely low number of recovered pieces -- just two pieces to be exact -- showed any evidence of being exposed to pre-collapse temperatures in excess of 250 C.

3. None of the recovered pieces showed any signs of being exposed to temperatures in excess of 600 C at any time.

4. Since NIST's WTC collapse theories require a significant amount of WTC metal to have been exposed to temperatures above 600 C for a significant period of time, the only hard, physical evidence NIST recovered argues against NIST's collapse theories.

5. Even understanding all these pertinent facts, you staunchly defend NIST's survey, analyses and conclusions as scientifically rigorous, comprehensive and complete to prop up your own beliefs about what happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. You're not getting it.

More than enough steel samples were gathered to test what NIST wanted to test: whether or not the steel in general was up to design standards. This gave them the ability to complete their models of building performance.

They freely admit that not enough steel was gathered to answer the question you want answered using the method you want to be used. Not enough structural steel in the areas hit by fire was recovered to answer questions about how hot the temperature got there.

Think of this like a poll in America. NIST is saying that polling 1000 people in a county in Arizona is not enough of a sample to know what America thinks on the subject. You are saying that it is enough (i.e., since those small samples weren't exposed to temps above 250, none of them were).

[mhatrw]

133. No, you are not getting it.

When the best available evidence (the hard physical evidence) contradicts your primary hypothesis, you either alter your hypothesis, collect more physical evidence until you find at least a shred of it that supports your hypothesis, or plainly and clearly admit that your working hypothesis is nothing more than speculative wishful thinking.

You don't hide your hypothesis's glaring and utterly critical shortcomings behind the lack of scientific rigor that characterized your chosen limits of inquiry. All the physical evidence needed to actually determine the WTC's collapse mechanism beyond any doubt existed. It was all right there on the ground. It all had to be picked up off the ground, moved to some other location, and finally be sold away and shipped to its international buyers. Since when does any real scientist forego the actual physical evidence staring him in the face and instead wax poetic about computer models fed with conditions subjectively determined from photographic and video "evidence" and even then admittedly tweaked to arrive at any feasible collapse initiation condition?

Just compare NIST's analysis of perhaps the single greatest civil engineering tragedy in US history to the average local arson case. Imagine, if you will, a parade of prosecution experts attempting to "prove" arson caused the damage to a local establishment using only external photos and videos of the fire and computers models based on these photos and video. The first thing the defense would say back is, what the hell did the physical evidence say about this subjective tripe? Have you ever heard of a single arson conviction in which the physical evidence was barely examined and whatever little was examined did not indicate arson?

The "scientific mission" NIST chose for itself in terms of examining the WTC pre-collapse damage and fires, the WTC collapse itself and the post-collapse fires was woefully inadequate by every conceivable scientific standard. That's the only point I've been making, so please at least attempt to address it directly.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. The best evidence doesn't contradict my primary hypothesis.

There isn't enough of it to contradict my primary hypothesis. That is NIST's point.

The steel gathered WAS sufficient to test it for design parameters, which is all it was ever intended to do. Under that concievable scientific standard, the only one set for it, it was adequate. (By the way, that is addressing your point directly.)

It was NOT sufficient to exterpolate temperatures that other parts of the core structure might have been exposed to. That was done via the computer modelling, which was the only choice.

Rail all you like against the haste of the cleanup operation. But understand that the ruins of the WTC were a smoking pit of pollutants pouring its way into the atmosphere. The place had to be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Utilities had to be repaired. Life had to go on.

But NIST didn't conduct the study you thought it should have, and therefore you feel the need to malign it as completely useless, when it is not. The NIST study accomplished the job it intended to do in the matter of the WTC towers collapse: develop a model of building performance under the ascertainable conditions of the 9/11 attacks and use that model to identify possible ways of improving building construction in the future.

You wanted oranges and you got apples, because apples was what was necessary to save lives in the future.

[mhatrw]

137. And who decided to examine so little physical evidence so that

even when 0% of it supported NIST's collapse hypothesis and less than 1% came within even 350 C of supporting it, NIST could still attempt to excuse this fact by simply postulating that the physical sample size they specifically chose to examine must not have been representative?

The steel gathered WAS sufficient to test it for design parameters, which is all it was ever intended to do.

Why was this all "it was ever intended to do"? In your mind, is there really no connection between the actual physical evidence of a unique and historic phenomenon and the scientific explanation of the phenomenon?

It was NOT sufficient to exterpolate temperatures that other parts of the core structure might have been exposed to. That was done via the computer modelling, which was the only choice.

Wrong. All the physical evidence was there. As I said, it was just sitting on the ground. It had to be taken away one piece at a time, loaded onto trucks, moved elsewhere and finally get picked up by its buyers! Instead, NIST chose to cursorily examine just 0.25% to 0.5% of it, and when the samples they examined offered no support whatsoever for their collapse hypothesis, they simply chose to write this fact off, citing their own chosen lack of scientific rigor as their basis!

Rail all you like against the haste of the cleanup operation. But understand that the ruins of the WTC were a smoking pit of pollutants pouring its way into the atmosphere. The place had to be cleaned up as quickly as possible. Utilities had to be repaired. Life had to go on.

And the physical evidence simply had to be immediately removed from its NJ staging area, immediately sold to foreign countries on the other side of the globe and immediately smelted? Along with the transaction receipts, of course! Just how stupid do you think we all are to advance such a ridiculous argument?

But NIST didn't conduct the study you thought it should have, and therefore you feel the need to malign it as completely useless, when it is not. The NIST study accomplished the job it intended to do in the matter of the WTC towers collapse: develop a model of building performance under the ascertainable conditions of the 9/11 attacks and use that model to identify possible ways of improving building construction in the future.

So tell us, exactly what physical design specification changes concerning future skyscraper construction did NIST develop based on their computer models of the WTC towers' supposed collapse initiation sequences? What current construction efforts have been subject to higher material code standards due to NIST's computer models of WTC's collapse -- models that were not supported by even a shred physical evidence? Please tell us which structures are being redesigned and what building materials are subject to new, higher standards based on NIST's tenuous hypothesis of the WTC towers' collapses.

[Bolo Boffin]

140. Why was this all it was intended to do???

Because that was the stated objective!

Again and again you continue to judge the study based on what you wanted it to do, and not whether the study met its objectives. That's not good faith on your part. You're using a wrench like a hammer, and cursing it because you keep hitting your thumb.

The steel gathered by NIST is not sufficient to exterpolate temperatures throughout the WTC core. I can't understand why you continue to deny this.

Why did they gather so little? You act as if NIST was there the next day. The study didn't even start until August 2002, almost a year later. Should they have left the pile there to smoke until somebody showed up to get this piece or that, even a year to a year and a half later? Riiiiiiight.

http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm

The above link will connect you to the real world. Be careful out there.

[mhatrw]

142. Why didn't the NIST study start until August 2002?

And why did any the physical evidence of perhaps the most tragic civil engineering disaster in US history have be sold off for scrap ever?

More critically, what could possibly be the explanation for selling off at least 99.5% of the WTC steel to China & India for scrap before it was examined by any scientists, engineers or metallurgists in any manner at all? Why aren't are few hundred tons of this debris in the Smithsonian for God's sake? Were the events of 9/11 of no scientific, academic or historical significance to anyone in the world except me?

[Americus]

135. Powerful, convincing, extremely well-reasoned post. Congratulations.

There are some extremely fine minds here and yours is one of them. I don't think I've come across even one post by a OCT'er that comes within a country mile of being so well thought out, reasonable, informed by a widely knowledgeable intelligence, as yours.

Compliments and felicitations.

[mhatrw]

138. Thanks. But I'm getting a feeling that I'm wasting my time here.

Frankly, I'm used to discussion in which both sides are seeking to share their knowledge and advance their understanding of outstanding issues in good faith.

This is more like arguing with spin doctors.

[Grateful for Hope]

139. I hope you continue to contribute

I find your posts very valuable.

[StrafingMoose]

131. Isn't 2 of these tasks a waste of time?

1. determine mechanical properties of WTC structural steel

2. determine the quality of the steel and if it met its design requirements

Why would NIST waste their time on this if UL (Underwriters Lab) already did that job?

I'm just asking...

[StrafingMoose]

141. Wrong node..

That should have went in reply to boloboffin's "You're cursing an apple for not being an orange." message...

[mirandapriestly]

144. The NIST is the one who did the "serious misrepresenting"

just ask kevin ryan

[petgoat]

92. "know what their doing"?

Hah! Then how come NIST has not one core steel sample showing heating above
250 degrees C?

How come FEMA endorsed the zipper-pancake theory and NIST completely reversed
the collapse mechanism?

How come FEMA completely rejected structural damage as a component in WTC7's
collapse, while the NIST 6/04 preliminary relies on it and NIST's 12/05 is
six months overdue?

How come the FEMA studies of the sulfidation attack were discontinued?

How come neither NIST nor FEMA had the intellectual honesty to complain
in their reports about the lack of site access and the lack of steel samples?
They both should have had disclaimers: "Given the unfortunate premature
destruction of the steel, we can not have a great deal of confidence in
our conjectures, but the following represents our best possible explanation
of the collapses."

[petgoat]

101. "know what their doing"?

What about this statement of NIST:

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.

They didn't consider the testimony of eyewitnesses, the pulverization of the concrete, the
squibs, or the energetic expulsion of dust corroborating evidence?

And what's the weasel language? Are they telling us the explosives were planted in the elevator
shafts after midnight the morning of 9/11?

Kevin Ryan points out that before their disappointing steel sample analysis, NIST claimed
that the samples had been selected from the impact and fire damage areas, but after the
analysis NIST said none of the steel samples was from zones where high heating was predicted.

[mirandapriestly]

58. Thermite contains iron oxide, which would provide

oxygen to the underground fires allowing them to burn underground. That's another point that fits.

[LARED]

60. Ever taken a chemistry class?

Done a mass balance?

Some points to consider

The underground fires burns for weeks, and were significant in size and intensity.

Thermite is a very very fast chemical reaction, providing tremendous heat until it's oxygen is consumed.

Thermite is not needed to burn combustible material underground, air is. There was plenty of air.

I asked all this because I would like you to consider how many tons of thermite would be needed to feed underground fires spread over a large area for weeks. How would it get there? Why would it be spread over a very large area in the WTC rubble? How would no one notice tons of highly hazardous material in storage?

If you want thermite to 'fit' you need to do lots more homework.

[mhatrw]

65. Plenty of air for over 2000 C temperatures?

Please explain.

[LARED]

74. Steel melts around 2500 F not 2000 C (3632 F)

Also what is the world does the quantity of air have to do with the temperature of the fire? Please explain.

[mhatrw]

86. What conditions result in fires hot enough to melt steel?

You seem to be the expert. I'm just asking.

[LARED]

103. I never said I was an expert

But, what I do know is that underground fires get very hot for a number of reasons. There is typically only minimum excess air, Convective heat transfer is very low, Heat is trapped raising the temperature.

Some links

http://www.process-heating.com/CDA/Articles/Energy_Notes/f12bee010e268010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____
http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summit_tunnel_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

[mhatrw]

105. What was burning?

What was fueling this world's record urban underground fire?

You would seemingly need a lot of fuel as well as a lot of oxygen. Sure, extremely high temperatures are possible when heat is getting trapped, but wouldn't you think scientists and engineers who study the effects of fires would be interested in a comprehensive forensic examination of what was probably the hottest and longest burning urban fire in history? Wouldn't it be important to fully study this phenomenon for many reasons, not the least of which would be learning how to prevent and control these types of fires (or any type of super hot, contained fire remotely similar) if they're ever encountered again and how to engineer buildings such that even if they somehow collapse due to fire that they don't burn for weeks at temperatures hot enough to melt steel? Wouldn't it be important to understand this? So where are the scientific papers analyzing this phenomenon five years later?

[LARED]

107. What was burning?

The enitire contents of a two 110 story office building was avaiable as fuel.

[Americus]

109. You're saying the entire 110 story building was burning?

Did you read that somewhere in an engineering book or at Wikipedia?

[LARED]

111. Read much slower, It will help comprehension (n/t)

[Americus]

112. You didn't say ANYTHING actually burned, only that it was "available"

Did you read that in Wikipedia or did one of your cubicle mates explain to you?

[LARED]

126. OkeeDokee

Is safe to assume you beleive that there was something other than normal building materials that burned for weeks?

What do you think they were?

[mhatrw]

113. So which of these contents fueled these record underground fires?

Plastic, steel, silicon, asbestos?

computers, computer wiring, plastic computer chairs, blinds, cubicle frames, plasterboard, microwaves, vending machines, steel and other metal, water coolers, CDs, DVDs and other computer media, other computer hardware, ceiling tiles, light fixtures, metal desks and tables?

decently flammable:

paper not inside metal filing cabinets & metal desks, thin oil-based rugs, cork, white boards, packing boxes, conference/welcoming room furniture, the top exec's wooden desks & perhaps bookcases & books, wood moulding (?)

Am I missing anything?

What specifically was burning? How & why did the underground fires burn so hot for so long? Where was the air coming from? Where was the smoke exhausting to? Usually piling debris on a fire is a great way to put it out.

[hack89]

118. What was fueling the fires before the collapse?

That's where you will find your answer. There was obviously enough energy released to create massive plumes of smoke so there must have been plenty of combustibles.

[mhatrw]

122. Thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel and a huge hole in the building

makes for a lot of smoke for a couple of hours.

We are talking about not much oxygen, and temperatures that supposedly led to molten steel and lasted a few weeks with the underground fires.

[hack89]

124. But since the jet fuel was consumed in less than 10 minutes ...

there had to be more than that. What fueled the Madrid fire? They were hot enough to cause the steel portions of the building to collapse so perhaps your answer can be found there.

BTW, how many thousands of gallons of gas do you think were in the cars parked in the underground garages? Perhaps that in combination with the other combustibles was sufficient?

How much molten steel was there? I have never seen a figure - if there were only small amounts in a limited area then the fires did not need to be large.

[mhatrw]

130. You guys are great at coming up with wild ass guesses.

Where is the scientific analysis of this incredible, historic phenomenon some five years after the fact?

[hack89]

136. Well, you could apply some logic to the issue ....

A tank of gas slams into a steel column or floor truss while moving at 500 mph and ruptures. A large amount of the gas is consumed in the resulting fireball (seen on video) - the remaining fuel is atomized and sprayed over a very large area. Atomized fuel has more surface area so it burns very rapidly. If the fuel was sitting in pools on the floor I could understand it burning a relatively long time but that was not the case.

If logic is beyond you - here is the science:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[mhatrw]

143. That's not evidence.

That's just a another wild-ass guess all gussied up.

[hack89]

145. Well, why don't you provide some evidence to support your argument,

so I can understand exactly what your standards are. You do have some evidence don't you?

[mhatrw]

146. My argument is that unique, critical, important, historic, compelling

life-or-death and scientifically crucial events like the 9/11 pre-collapse WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 fires, the complete collapse sequences of all three towers, the post-collapse underground fires and the environmental effects of all of these events necessitated intense scientific scrutiny of the actual physical evidence. You know, the kind of articles that get published for the entire scientific community as well as the curious public to read. Not a bunch of stupid guesses about what could have happened, but an actual physical forensic examination to determine what actually happened.

Do you agree or disagree with my argument?

[Contrite]

162. Damn, mhatrw!

Stick around!

[Bolo Boffin]

167. I refer you to what you seek:

http://wtc.nist.gov

[Contrite]

169. Here is Dr. Jones' response.

It appears that some on this forum have not read it.

http://www.911readingroom.org/bib/jones/why_indeed_v3.html

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

Updates: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/DrJonesTalksatISUPhysicsDepartment.pdf

http://www.supportthetruth.com/jones.php

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf (Robert Moore's comments re: NIST)

[Bolo Boffin]

172. I'd like some proof for this unsupported assertion of yours.

"he mystery of the molten metal pools... is clearly a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse."

Hogwash. It is nothing of the sort. The "molten metal pools" are a phenomenon caused by the conditions of the Pile. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse.

Support your assertion or withdraw it.

[Contrite]

173. It is not my assertion.

It is part of Dr. Jones' paper.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. Well, go get your reasons from him for this unsupported assertion of his.

Why do you think that no engineer or scientist familiar with the "mysterious molten pools" didn't think they "clearly" had something to do with the collapse, until Stephen Jones figured it out?

Because the conditions under the Pile produced that phenomenon. There was sufficient cause for all of that in the conditions under the Pile.

[Contrite]

175. Alright.

http://www.truefacts.co.uk/jones_paper/

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?

We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.)

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged.

Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal.

Furthermore, we have seen published reports that "molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances.

The official reports by NIST, FEMA and the 9-11 Commission strikingly omit mention of large quantities of molten metal observed in the basement areas of WTC 7 and the Towers. The fact that the official reports do not adequately address the issue of molten metal found at the sites provides compelling motivation for continued research on the WTC collapses.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

They do NOT explain how steel-column temperatures above 800oC were achieved near-simultaneously due to burning office materials. NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures. And to have three buildings completely collapse due to this unlikely mechanism on the same day strains credulity. Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

Finally, what about that molten metal under the rubble piles of all three WTC skyscrapers and the yellow-white hot molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower just prior to its collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

176. Your quotemining (sorry, Stephen Jones' quotemining) is showing.

Here's Stephen's nicely cut version:

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,

‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

Now here's the original:

Even before the twin towers of the World Trade Center fell, Sarah Atlas and her canine partner, Anna, a black-faced German shepherd, were deployed by New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue. By the end of the day on September 11, they were at Ground Zero, where they stayed for ten days in a fruitless search for survivors.

“The people who called us had been killed,” Atlas considered as she surveyed the tons and acres of wreckage. “Nobody’s going to be alive.” Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. She wore a respirator to filter out the smoke, dust, and fumes, but Anna worked without a mask to sniff out places where the broken dead lay. Anna is a live-find dog, but she developed a “truly intent stare” that Atlas came to recognize as her response to catching the scent of a corpse. Mostly they found parts.

The sentence in question is part of a paragraph that summarizes her ten-day search. We've seen thermal maps of the first few days. They chart the extreme temperatures coming off of the Pile from the intense fires buried beneath it.

The conditions under the Pile were sufficient to produce the "molten metal pools". There is zero evidence that the "molten pools" are connected to the collapse. Zero.

[Contrite]

177. I miss the point.

Again, Dr. Jones:

Are there any examples of buildings toppled by fires or any reason other than deliberate demolition that show large pools of molten metal in the rubble? I have posed this question to numerous engineers and scientists, but so far no examples have emerged.

Strange then that three buildings in Manhattan, supposedly brought down finally by fires, all show these large pools of molten metal in their basements post-collapse on 9-11-2001. It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings. It is not enough to argue hypothetically that fires could possibly cause all three pools of orange-hot molten metal.

Furthermore, we have seen published reports that "molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet" -- how could building fires have caused that effect? Has it ever been seen before? We know of no such instances.

My comment: How is it relevant that the fires were extreme during the first few days? I would imagine, even without having seen the thermal maps, that they would be. First responders reported the ground was so hot that their rubber boots melted. What is surprising is that they existed and that they burned for three months, during which time red-hot molten metal continued to be recovered. Without a history of such type event--piles of rubble burning to this extent after a collapse, without proven-sufficient heat to melt the structure to collapse it to begin with--what are we to conclude? That is why it is important that NIST address it; i.e., prove that the molten pools have nothing to do with the collapse--so we may lay the matter to rest.

[Bolo Boffin]

178. We always hear about the "unprecedented" character of these collapses...

Is it any wonder that some unprecedented things happen in them?

Every controlled demolition I've ever heard of has been painstakingly planned, and all combustible materials are gutted from the buildings! Gee, I wonder why that is? Could it be, could it possibly be, that the planners didn't want to have to put out a huge fire under the building they just demolished - because maybe, just maybe, those fires get hot?

To find the same kind of conditions under the Pile, to find anything like a precedent, you have to look at underground fires like Centralia and Burning Mountain. The conditions under the Pile were: the contents of two office buildings, ground to dust and compressed under the remains of those buildings, set on fire. You do understand that heat trapped becomes heat accumulated? The thermal maps show us the rate of heat escaping the Pile, but that means that the under-Pile fires are pumping out that much energy -- plenty of energy to melt any metal you might find in that jumbled mess that used to be the World Trade Center towers. The Pile is actually acting as insulation, so the temperatures sailing out of it are extraordinary hot. Thermite cannot be the sole explanation here, because these fires burn for weeks. Thermite burns out and is done. You have to have the fires under the Pile to explain the time span of the temperatures. They are a necessary part of any explanation. Thermite is not.

And since the fires could burn that hot, there is no need to posit thermite at all. You can forget about NIST addressing this - the final report on the towers, the only place it would be addressed, is finished and released. A report on WTC 7 is due soon, but a discussion of this isn't appropriate there.

Regardless, this matter can be laid to rest by rational people. The fires are sufficient to explain the phenomenon, and so thermite is sliced away by Occam's razor. The fire explains it all.

[Contrite]

179. Yes, there's always a first time.

And I do understand exothermic reactions (I work in construction).

As I understand it, the rubble would have helped to "smother the fires", not increase them.

This site likens the WTC pile to the fires at Chernobyl.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread261174/pg

But the point remains that the report did not address this and so it remains a question in people's minds. If it were so easy to explain, and so easy to provide salient examples, then why didn't NIST do so?

I think the problem so many of us are having is just that the questions being raised are not all being addressed, and that makes many wonder what "they" are trying to hide.

For example, what about addressing the (Finnish military expert's) hypothesis that there was a "small" hydrogen bomb in the basement in discussing the fires? What about explaining the brownish smoke as it erupted from the towers? Or the bluish smoke that arose from the rubble?

[Bolo Boffin]

180. Maybe NIST didn't bother because they didn't see the problem.

You know? Maybe they thought, "Oh, the buildings fell down, the fires underneath burned for weeks, of course the molten metals are explained by that, and anyway, we want to know why the buildings finally gave way." Conditions under the Pile could tell them nothing about that. Everything under the Pile was after collapse initiation - they were only interested in before and up to collapse initiation.

A nuclear bomb hypothesis is ludicrous.

[Contrite]

181. That is one of the central problems with the report.

That it limited its scope.

Why not explain the entire collapse, and the fires? It's obviously not "transparently obvious" to a great many people, including engineers, physics professors, and just your average Jane like me.

It leaves questions in people's minds about one of the biggest disasters in history. They scooped up the evidence and carted it off and limited opportunities to investigate or even to collect photographic evidence. Why?

The hydrogen bomb may be ludicrous or it may not. The point, again, is it has been raised--in answer to the very many unanswered questions about this extremely monumental event upon which so many other actions have depended affecting not only U.S. citizens but the world. It's an international concern that is, AFAIK, gaining ground.

[eyl]

184. Do you think the NIST report

should also has discussed the theory that the collapse was caused by a Martian attack? That's not much less credible then a nuclear (much less a thermonuclear) bomb theory.

[John Q. Citizen]

185. You don't know about pure fusion? I guess that might sound like

Martians if someone was totally unaware of the theory and research being done through out the world on 4th generation nuclear devices.

I can imagine that you wouldn't know about it, but NIST would see the connection with the highly elevated levels of tritium found following the collapses.

On the other hand, NIST didn't even test for conventional high explosive residue, even though hundreds of eyewitnesses reported secondary explosions.

Do you know any witnesses, (except for yourself,) who reported seeing Martians?

[eyl]

186. Did I claim to be an eyewitness?

And I've never heard of a currently feasible process by which you could produce a pure fusion bomb.

[John Q. Citizen]

187. Oh, sorry. i thought perhaps you saw the

Martians and that's why you mentioned them. Nobody else in the thread did, so I thought you were referencing some personal knowledge.

Theoretically, pure fusion bombs are quite feasible. Just as when the Manhattan Project was started, fission bombs were theoretically quite feasible.

We didn't hear much about a feasible process for fission bombs until well after the fact, as I recall.

And regardless of whether fusion bombs are or will be feasible, the obvious lack of curiosity of NIST as to possible causes of the collapse is startling.

As Max Cleland stated, "The 9/11 Commission is compromised."

[eyl]

188. So are antimatter bombs

(more so, actually - the primary difficulty in producing a crude AM device with current technology is just manufacturing enough of the stuff) and they weren't considered either. When the Manhattan Project started, there was not only the basic theory of fission available, but also the basic technological steps you would need to create a bomb. Currently, there is no such equivalent (again, AFAIK) in the field of pure fusion.

And thus my point - which is where the Martians came in - is that the Commission didn't examine every possible theory, and could not do so. BEcause you can always propose a more far-out theory, so they have to draw the line somewhere*

*here's another ridiculous example, to emphasize the point - they didn't examine whether molecules in the WCT's support structures all spontaneously disassociated either

[John Q. Citizen]

189. Yeah, and NIST didn't test for high explosive residue, either.

Because it would be too far fetched to imagine that anyone could use high explosives?

Look, I'm not arguing anything except that their has been no credible investigation of the 3 rapid sequential global collapses of three buildings caused by 3 random events.

NIST wasn't able to find any physical evidence to support their main hypothisis.

[Contrite]

183. Also, a firefighter talks of the flowing molten metal

http://infowars.net/articles/november2006/171106molten.htm

[Contrite]

161. Madrid did not have underground fires

that burned for 8 weeks

[hack89]

164. Lets see here ...

1. Madrid was mainly made of concrete and did not suffer a complete collapse therefore there was not a massive rubble pile.

2. The WTC towers were orders of magnitude greater than Madrid, therefore there was not enough material in Madrid to create a massive rubble pile even if it was to collapse completely.

3. Madrid was not built over a huge hole with seven subterranean floors that created a nice fire pit for the rubble pile to fill and for the fires to burn in.

[Contrite]

165. Exactly.

So, the Madrid fire is a lousy comparison.

[Bolo Boffin]

166. Then quit comparing the Madrid fire to the WTC collapses.

You brought it up!

[Contrite]

168. I was talking about the rubble.

Bringing up the Madrid Windsor in a discussion of the subterranean fires at the WTC is a lousy comparison.

I knew you would reply, since I had mentioned it before in a response to you, boloboffin. I'm not senile (yet).

[hack89]

170. The contents of the Madrid towers

fuel fires hot enough to cause the steel portions to weaken and collapse, just like the WTC. So in that regards it is a good comparison. IF the Madrid tower had been identical to the WTC it's collapse would have produced rubble pile fires just like the WTC.

[Contrite]

171. But it wasn't identical.

So the comparison is limited to the similarities.

[hack89]

182. True, but don't forget that Madrid is "proof" ..

that fires can't make steel structures collapse. In the context of this board they are actually used to support demolition CTs - that is how they entered the 911 dialog to start with.

[Americus]

69. Any relation to a certain "azcat"? You sound like you're related. n/t

n/t

[LARED]

71. The only relation is we're both real engineers.

and we didn't graduate from Google University

[mirandapriestly]

82. Yeah, you and make 7 share a degree

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155

[LARED]

89. Yes, we're actually co-joined twins

You figured it out, Dang it was a secret.

[Americus]

95. Which one is "Dang" and which is "Daisy"...or are they interchangeable?

I'm surprised they still teach that old technique of "trying to turn an unpleasant truth into a joke and then magnifying it so that the very idea seems ludicrous". It's also kinda odd that all of the OCT'ers use that very same technique. So, are all of them (3? 300?) related somehow?

[Make7]

149. Does anyone else miss 'janedoe'?

She always made such pretty visual aids.

- Make7

[mirandapriestly]

158. I know why you brought this thread up M7

it's kind of creepy that you guys put so much effort into things like that.

[Make7]

159. Interesting...

You reply to my post and then block me from responding at all. Interesting way to engage in a discussion.

Unfortunately there appears to be a small issue with the ignore features - they are disabled under high site traffic conditions.

So, I'd like to know why you believe I brought this thread up.

I'll give you a hint: There is a DU rule concerning talking about people when they are not participating in a thread.

That's the main reason, I thought I'd see if you would respond first before asking you directly about it. I'm quite certain that you have a fascinating theory of your own. Why not just spell it out instead of making vague insinuations? (You can PM me if you would like. Should you decide to, could you change your ignore settings to allow me to send you PMs? Thanks.)

- Make7

[greyl]

163. On a personal note:

Why the hell would anyone block you?

Every post of yours I've seen has been a model of decorum and tranquility. They aren't just squeaking by the DU rules, they're clearly created with the intention of being polite and friendly. Straightforward, fact based, amicability.
I presume those proud few that have blocked you are bothered by facts that you've posted, not by your style.

[mirandapriestly]

190. My rude posts have been in response to my treatment here

which fortunately, I don't have to put up with anymore. Buh bye.

[mirandapriestly]

81. Yes, but I doubt you have

and I doubt you know more than Steven Jones, wikipedia be damned.

[LARED]

88. Prof Jones clearly has expertize most people lack

but because he understands quantum physics does not mean he understands how to put a bicycle together.

But you avoided my question, How abut a response?

[mirandapriestly]

97. It's not my theory.

According to Steven Jones thermite would provide oxygen for underground fires. you mention a mass balance , well the conservation of mass tells us that once something is created (oxygen) it doesn't justs 'disappear" so it would seem to me, that it doesn't matter how "short acting" a thermite reaction is - if oxygen is produced it's not going to just disappear. I'm not going to pretend to be a scientist, this is according to Steven jones, I don't think he gives opinions that could easily be disproved by internet posters. I found this discussion, too:
http://forum.physorg.com/Basic-Physics_3108-3100.html
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...

a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'

b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistent fire

c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires

d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction

e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)

f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary

g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.

h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).

AND Additionally...

i - Thermite melts steel

j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the white smoke referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.

[LARED]

98. You are absolutely correct

well the conservation of mass tells us that once something is created (oxygen) it doesn't justs 'disappear" so it would seem to me, that it doesn't matter how "short acting" a thermite reaction is - if oxygen is produced it's not going to just disappear.

Where does it go?

[mirandapriestly]

108. I'd say

there was oxygen in the molten steel. I've read and seen reactions occurring even as the building was collapsing.
But I'm sure he isn't going to make something like this up , there is a reason he said what he did about the underground oxygen it's not like he's you or something. So I don't think you're going to "disprove" Steven Jones.

[Americus]

110. OCT'ers can't disprove SJones's work. His credentials ensure that.

When you compare the known, verifiable credentials of Steven Jones vs. those of the OCT Spinning Doctors
here (do they even have any, besides a knowledge of how to use Wikipedia?), no one in their right mind would give more credence to an OCT'er than to Dr. Jones.

[mirandapriestly]

115. Haven't you noticed, they all have

degrees in engineering and physics! Yet they seem to have time to post 24/7.

[Americus]

117. I don't believe it. It's more likely they only have ACCESS to

to one or more engineers that they can ask questions to. As a supplement to their main source of information, which apparantly is nothing more than Wikipedia.

Engineers are problem solvers, but you're talking about people whose expertise is in tactics of disruption, truth suppression, distraction, disinformation, SPINNING, and cheerleading. In other words, "how to make the worst seem the best course".

[AZCat]

120. Brilliant!

So you are able, merely from the content of posts here at DU, to determine whether or not a poster is an engineer? I am amazed - I didn't realize that even though there are millions of engineers in this country from diverse backgrounds and in diverse areas we all post in an easily recognizable manner. Are you so keenly tuned to the other professions - do lawyers and doctors and such all also fit into your neat little boxes?

[Americus]

121. no, just phony engineers with bogus degrees from Wikipedia & Google

n/t

[AZCat]

123. Good.

Please point them out - if they are impersonating engineers, then they should be held accountable.

It's actually illegal to claim to be a professional engineer when one isn't, but since there are lots of non-degreed engineers out in the workforce (many who know much more than I do) there's no way to differentiate between so-called "legitimate engineers" and a phony. And more importantly, is there a reason to do so? If someone fresh out of school can claim to be an engineer, why not someone who has worked in a field for twenty years?

[SidDithers]

128. Maybe that's why we get so frustrated...

when we see the quality of the "internet science" used here to support some of the fantastic explanations proposed in this forum.

Sid

[hack89]

119. Hold on a second..

are you saying then that you will accept the analysis of any engineering PhD that teaches at a major university or does Jones have unique qualifications that makes him different from most professors?

[rman]

5. Color of molten aluminium

Alumunium has a low melting point, 660c according to this table:
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Al/heat.html

the radient color (as opposed to reflective color) of any material is proportional to its temperature. See "Black Body Radiation": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation , http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html , http://webphysics.davidson.edu/alumni/MiLee/java/bb_mjl.htm

At 660c and a bit above, there's virtually not radient color component, so molten aluminium can be 'silver' colored.

If the temperature is increased, aluminium will glow red, orange, yellow - just as any other material.


http://www.world-aluminium.org/production/processing/casting.html

you can do this at home:

http://www.alexdenouden.nl/artikelen/alugieten.htm


http://www.aluminumdiecasting.org/

[LARED]

8. Another fact a physics professor should be aware of

Something about the guy does not compute.

[Americus]

15. Another fact that all DUers (esp. those new here) should be aware of

Something about the OCT'ers here does not compute.

[mirandapriestly]

22. Or...does it?....NT

[AZCat]

25. Perhaps you'd be kind enough...

to point out both who here supports the "OCT" and what exactly about them "does not compute" (and perhaps explicate that phrase).

[StealthyDragon]

28. Most of us....

have been saying that about you for the longest time.

[mirandapriestly]

35. Heh heh heh

Perfect comeback.

[StealthyDragon]

40. It's so obvious..........

Only a neoshill would find every contradiction to natural laws to be perfectly normal.

[LARED]

9. self delete

[mirandapriestly]

16. He conducted the following tests using temperatures appropriate for

the World Trade Center on 9-11.


Here are the results
www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

[mirandapriestly]

21. This is what he says about aluminum

"Finally, the use of thermite or a derivative such as thermate is consistent with the observation of yellow-white hot molten metal observed falling in large “drops” from the northeast corner of WTC 2 (the South Tower), just prior to its collapse. (See
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .) We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears "silvery". Aluminum at about 1000 C will emit yellow light (incandescense) the same as iron, but in daylight (as on the morning of 9/11/2001), the molten aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity, while molten iron would appear yellow (as seen in the video record.) Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the thermite reaction. (See http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html .)"

You need to read what he wrote before jumping to conclusions. He is no dummy.

[rman]

26. I stand corrected.

Thanks.

My point was not to say that Jones is a dummy.
Initially i figured that since aluminium will run as a liquid at temperatures where it doesn't glow, any aluminium flowing out of the towers would be likely not to be glowing. Now it turns out its reflective color component is quite prominent even at temperatures where it does have a radiant color component.

I was merely pointing out that the statement "molten aluminium looks silver/does not glow" as such is inaccurate - i was correct in so far that it turns out it is only true under certain conditions, conditions which happened to be present in case of the WTC.

In my defense: the writings you refer to were not mentioned in the OP, nor in the interview as far i could gather.

At any rate I think it's a good thing that it's clarified now what's up with the color of molten aluminium.
Also i think it's important for people to realize that radiant color ("glow") is independent of the material and only dependent on temperature; if it glows orange/yellow (as is the case with the stuff streaming from the WTC) then it's some 1000 to 2000c - regardless of the material. Little did i know (as i imagine most here did) that with certain materials reflective color can still be a factor.

[mirandapriestly]

32. Well, you had me worried for a second

(or more) thinking could it be that Dr Jones would make a mistake like that? You're right, from the OP you can't tell that. You should weigh in more on scientific issues, you obviously are "no dummy" yourself! :). I get kind of defensive on here, sorry if I was rude.

[rman]

37. No harm done

I know things can get a bit tense in this forum.
:hi:

[petgoat]

94. Self-delete: redundant. nt

[MervinFerd]

18. Chain of Custody?

A sculptor 'found' a big blob of molten metal?
And we know this is from WTC, how?

And what is the probability that this particular hunk was collected from anywhere near points of collapse? There was a lot of building there.

And how did this hunk of iron get melted? The fires that caused the collapse were not hot enough to actually melt steel. Aluminum maybe, but not steel.

I think this Dude has rediscovered Cold Fusion.

[Dancing_Dave]

20. Lots of Sulpher was also found in post 9/11 airpollution.

Environmental physicist Thomas Cahill of UC Davis found sulpher in in the smoke from the smouldering WTC wreakage, even week after 9/11. He believes his air pollution findings demonstrate "anaerobic combustion". In other words, heat producing chemical reactions deep in the ruble pile where there was no air. And we know from other sources that metal deep in the ruble staid in molten form at thousands of degrees for weeks.

Now the people who worked on the top of the ruble pile, are dying from inhaling those chemicals produced deep in the pile...what a hellish way to go!

[petgoat]

24. Sulfur in the smoke is beside the point. The fact is, in

Appendix C to the the ASCE/FEMA report, 3 PhDs were completely
mystefied as to the source ofhr sulfur.

[mhatrw]

31. What temperatures would you expect to be generated from

"anaerobic combustion"?

What chemical reactions are we talking about?

[lightbulb]

43. Lots of molten steel was created during the cleanup

They had to cut countless pieces of steel into manageable chunks to cart them off. How do we know this molten blob was not created at that time? The relatively small pieces being used for a sculpture are especially likely to have been cut after the collapse. And do we know for a fact that no thermite or thermate were used in the cleanup cutting work?

Not necessarily saying Jones isn't onto something, but these are questions that need to be asked before making assumptions.

[rman]

53. You must be really desperate to make excuses for the OCT

Cutting steel could create pools of molten steel that stay hot for weeks on end? You don't need to know for a fact that thermite was used during the cleanup?
Talk about assumptions.

[Codeine]

62. How does this person know

...exactly where this chunk of steel came from? To make any sort of realistic scientific analysis of this he'd have to know precisely where this metal came from and the circumstances of its collection. Really this chunk of metal could be from anywhere, right?

[dailykoff]

63. Yes, how does he know it wasn't planted by invisble elves?

Who's the "conspiracy theorist" now?

[Codeine]

66. Conspiracy theorist?

Huh? I'm just stating a fact -- no serious scientist would ever be able to make a claim like this without knowing about the provenance of his specimen. I'm not claiming anything untoward occured with the metal, just that without a more detailed explanation regarding the metal nobody knows where it came from.

[dailykoff]

70. That's what they all say. (n/t)

[LARED]

73. Thank you for raising an important point.

Every time I have had failure analysis performed the analyst requires a great deal of information as to the environment of the specimen. They want to know where it came from, what it was exposed to, how it was used. who used it, what are the specification if applicable, how it was build, who built it, etc.

Without knowing this information it is very difficult to connect this specimen to anything related to the WTC collapse.

[mirandapriestly]

83. "no serious scientist"

He explains the details of where his samples are from. You should listen to/read the information. Why do you suppose he had trouble getting NIST to cooperate? Speaking of "serious scientists" Peter Gayle of NIST used false information in his analysis of how hot the steel had to be before it melted and he couldn't get his models to work, yet he never revised his theories. He wouldn't answer the letter from Kevin Ryan of UL (see my post on Kevin Ryan), but instead got him fired (probably). So save your ad hominem bashing for the government that lied to us, OK?

[mirandapriestly]

80. There are WTC monuments going up all over.

This belonged to a sculptor who knew Dr Jones was asking for samples. I'm sure it can be proven to belong to the wtc. Is that Siouxshee? I used to love her..

[Codeine]

96. Yep, that's Siouxsie

She's the sexiest lady ever!

[veeTwin]

77. Examining Prof. Jones

Greetings,
I hereby break my lurking streak to ask for some honest opinions from you guys/gals. I've always regarded Dr. Jones as just about the best thing the truth movement has going for it. That is until I listened to Fintan Dunne's analysis of him that came out on thursday http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26&start=270#2435 Fintan alleges that Dr. Jones is a CIA mole and it's not the first time. That happened back in the late 80's when he played a big part in making sure that cold fusion (the energy producing kind not the web programming language) went down in flames. The audio and supporting articles are almost entirely about the cold fusion days but are extremely interesting. At the very least I will keep a closer eye on Dr. Jones. Please check it out and see how it sits with you.
Thank you!

[mirandapriestly]

78. Hi. I'll read it, but Fintan Dunne at one point

said that almost every single group/individual involved in 911 questioning was "a CIA mole". What this does is make us not trust anyone and I started to wonder if maybe the "mole" is Fintan Dunne ;) If Jones' allegations suddenly become disproved, then I will believe it, but for the time being I am going to trust him.
The only thing that seems strange is that a University like BYU, which I would imagine to be very conservative would not try to silence him (although he says they have tried to get him to tone it down)or even fire him, because he has basically said that 911 was an inside job. But, OTOH, there are a lot of conservatives who can't stand Bush, he isn't really a "conservative', he's a neocon, or he represents them, so maybe they welcome the information.
Welcome to DU. Thanks for posting that , I'll take a look at it!

[mirandapriestly]

156. Maybe I ought to look more at BFN

it's hard to know who to trust.

[SidDithers]

106. So, has Dr. Jones given us the results of his analysis yet?...

Or a timeline for those results?

I'm just trying to encourage discussion.

Sid

[Dancing_Dave]

147. He's not going to be able to tell much

From that one metal sample...of rather unknown origin.

As forensics explosive experts know it's very difficult to identify explosive residues in debris. There's just trace amounts, and many chunks of debris may have no residue at all.

Moreover, though sulfer can be an explosive residue, it can also can come from many other sources in an urban environment.

It's not always possible to identify explosives by chemical residues EVEN WHEN ALL THE KEY EVIDENCE AT A SITE IS PRESERVED. This is especially true of the newer high-energy explosives.

Jones isn't going to be able to determine much from this one sample. Maybe he'll find some suggestive leads, but there's no way this one piece will the settle the matter of what explosives were used.

This story is really getting over-hyped.

[vincent_vega_lives]

150. How exactly does the good Dr know exactly from whence the

sample originated?

A sculptor was working on a piece in a memorial park found a big glob of hardened molten metal and sent it to him.

What was the verification process?

[mirandapriestly]

153. I think Steven Jone's theory is convincing enough

but a biased agency that would say there is "no evidence" for a blast, would also say there is "no evidence" for thermite for the very reasons that make it such a good choice - it doesn't leave any conclusive proof - it's traces can be attributed to other things. After I found out that Jones was involved ending cold fusion research through a connection with the Department of Energy, I concluded that it's possible that this is a set up. In fact, it bears all the marks of one and not because there is anything wrong, really, with thermite.

*Thermite doesn't leave any conclusive trace
*Jones wasn't present at the public meeting with NIST where they discussed Thermite and said there was "no evidence" of explosions.
*The FAST removal of evidence, also makes proof difficult
*because Jones is the only person who has been taken even remotely seriously, thermite was all that NIST looked at, so they will say "no evidence" for thermite so controlled demolition is case closed-classic trick at work.

People like me are no match for the power and money of government agencies that are controlled by the Bush administration. If they want to deceive us they will.

[Grateful for Hope]

154. I couldn't agree more

"People like me are no match for the power and money of government agencies that are controlled by the Bush administration. If they want to deceive us they will."

None of us are a match for that power and money.

[mirandapriestly]

155. Not that it's going to shut me up, lol.eom

[Grateful for Hope]

157. Gotcha...LOL! n/t