Jet fuel can't melt steel beams
20 2015-12-10 by Greg_Roberts_0985
Jet fuel can't melt steel beams, so why was there molten metal at the WTC collapse sites?
NIST claims that WTC 1&2 collapsed due to jet fueled fires (just normal offices fires for WTC7) which were not hot enough to produce molten steel or iron, but also claim that if there had been molten steel or iron in the debris afterwards, it would have been irrelevant to the cause of the collapses. The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it.
Physical Evidence
- Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study
- Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:
Steel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.
In May 2004, the RJ Lee Group issued a report, entitled “WTC Dust Signature,” at the request of the Deutsche Bank, in order to prove (to its insurance company) that the building was “pervasively contaminated with WTC Dust The report listed five elements in this signature, one of which was: “Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF
Sources related to exceptionally high temperatures, and/or to persistent heat at Ground Zero
FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.
Testimonial Evidence
Testimony from Firefighters:
- New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo said: “You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channel rails, like you’re in a foundry, like lava.
- Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked on the rescue and cleanup efforts, reported that one beam lifted from deep below the surface months later, in February 2002, “was dripping from the molten steel.”
- New York firefighters recalled in the documentary film Collateral Damages, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”
Testimony from Other Professionals:
- Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the World Trade Center, said 21 days after the attack: “When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said, ‘I think you’d be interested in this,’ and they pulled up a big block of concrete and there was a, like a little river of steel, flowing.”
- Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health who arrived at Ground Zero September 12, 2001, said: “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.”
- In late fall 2001, Dr. Alison Geyh of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”
- Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, said in an October 2001 interview on CBS: “It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into [some] areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.”
- Dr. Keith Eaton reported in Structural Engineer: “They showed us many fascinating slides . . . ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster.”
- Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert from the National Operating Engineers Union, said six weeks after 9/11: “There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six stories underground that are still cherry red.”
- OSHA respond to the underground fires and potential steam explosions
Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in Mohammad Ayub and Scott Jin, structural engineers from its national office, to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments.
Testimony from Other Credible Witnesses:
- Greg Fuchek, vice president of a company that supplied computer equipment used to identify human remains, reported that “sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.”
- Sarah Atlas, of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, arrived at Ground Zero on September 11 and reported that “fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”
- Tom Arterburn, writing in Waste Age, reported that the New York Department of Sanitation removed “everything from molten steel beams to human remains
Videos
WTC2 South Tower, Molten Metal pouring out the North-East Corner
Pouring molten aluminum into a pool
Molten aluminum into cold water
Evidence of fused molten metal and concrete of extreme heat.
Thermite cutting steel - Validated experimentally
The fact that the rubble contained steel or iron that had been melted shows that the buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and airplane impact.
When all of this physical evidence is combined with the testimony about explosions from many types of professionals, the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by nothing other than the airplane impacts and resulting fires is simply not credible
77 comments
9 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Thermite.
4 TeChinga 2015-12-10
Why were you downvoted?
6 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Oh, you know, the Usual Suspects.
1 mcnealey720 2015-12-10
Lul. Rocket fuel. But I'm pretty sure loose change proved that thermite was there
5 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Loose Change didn't prove anything. That was a pretty terrible movie.
Dr. Neils Harrit of the University of Copenhagen and Dr. Steven Jones of Brigham Young University discovered the thermetic materials in the dust from the World Trade Center.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Primer paint actually.
5 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Thermite isn't primer paint.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Right, but it wasn't thermite that was found in the trade center dust, it was primer paint.
3 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Incorrect.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
No, it's correct.
The chips identified in the dust as being "thermitic" were a combination of Iron Oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy. To any good materials scientist, Iron Oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy are primer paint.
There was one brand of primer paint used on the floor trusses that matched the makeup of several of the "thermitic" chips in chemical composition, XEDS spectra, color, and a DSC peak that is consistent with burning epoxy in oxygen.
The best evidence from the Bentham team that the red/grey chips were thermitic came from a DSC test ran on one of the chips that showed a sharp energetic peak at around 430 degrees. They charted that DSC test in their paper (under figure 29 IIRC) and compared it with a test from another lab, LLNL, which tested actual thermite. Since the Bentham test compared favorably with the LLNL test, the Bentham team thought it proved their chip was thermitic.
Only one problem, they did the DSC test incorrectly.
The 2 authors of the paper the Bentham team used as a comparable came out and said their DSC test was ran in an inert atmosphere of ultra pure nitrogen where the Bentham team ran their DSC test in oxygen. So in essence, all they proved is that their chip made up of over 70% organic material will ignite and burn in air, just like you would expect it to.
Stephen Jones was made aware of this mistake in 2012 and agreed that a follow up inert atmosphere DSC test was needed...too bad it was never done. Mark Basile took $5000 in donations 2 years ago to sent a sample to an independent lab and have them run a DSC test in an inert atmosphere. That also was never done.
3 jacks1000 2015-12-10
I'm familiar with your disinformation, but it's wrong.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
You are correct in stating that this is incorrect. Just look at the purveyor of the paint theory:
Close...but no cigar.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
You need to read a bit closer and pay attention to keywords.
In other words, not every red grey chip was LaClede, nor would you expect it to be. There were at least 3 different steel primer paints in the trade towers, and the one (or more) used on the core supports is still unidentified.
Now that we know the DSC test in the Bentham paper was done in a completely different atmosphere than the comparable test from LLNL, we can safely say there is absolutely nothing about the red grey chips that resembles thermite in any way. Not the DSC spike, not the chemical makeup, not the XEDS spectra, not the ignition temperature, not the ratio of organic content. Nothing.
By the way, have you been keeping up with your buddy Mark Basiles donor funded study? Seems he's pissed off a lot of his initial supporters with his complete lack of results after nearly 2 full years. His donor page actually briefly turned into a picture of his face next to a picture of Donald Trump with the caption "you're fired" for a few days. Rick Shaddock from ANETA emailed Oystien directly and had a few interesting tidbits to share:
Seems like Basile is sandbagging a very simple process. Pack up some dust in a Tupperware container, FedEx it to a lab along with a cheque and have them tell you what the fuck it is.
That he hasn't is extremely telling.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
No, this is the specific primer paint you push.
This is the purveyor of the specific primer paint in question.
So...looks like I'm good. Thanks though!
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
There was more than one type of steel primer in the towers, and there was more than one makeup of red grey chips. So it stands to reason that LaClede doesn't represent every chip found in the dust, but it almost certainly represents some of them.
No comment at all on the DSC test fiasco? Or the Mark Basile fiasco? He's being thrown under the bus by the guy that started his fundraiser, a guy that was one of his staunchest allies.
The thermite paper gets more laughable by the day.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Some of the chips we're almost certainly LaClede (though not all, even if my previous statement wrongly stated otherwise). Others were made up from the other 2 or 3 different types of steel primer paint found in the towers, exactly as you would expect to find.
Oystien's statement wasn't incorrect.
And still nothing on the incorrectly done DSC test, or the Jones team's complete failure to follow up on it, or on Rick Shaddock throwing Mark Basile under the bus? Surely you have more to offer than pedantic nonsense, right PM? This is your hill to die on. This is your Waterloo. This is the one point you've defended to your dying breath for years, and it's crumbling around your ears.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
hmmmm...
hmm.......
hmmmm intensifies!
It's funny to watch you struggle.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Keep tapdancing PM.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
I'm having a great time watching you fail at proving your theory. Your theory that the original purveyor admits to be flawed.
0 tap dancing required on my end.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Nah, you're just being pedantic because I've taken your precious paper apart a brick at a time and you have no response for it. You could say I've progressively collapsed it.
The theory is that the red grey chips were primer paint, no matter which of the brands they came from (some of which are still unidentified). A good deal of them are a spot on match for LaClede, which supports that argument.
Not only that, but there is not a shred of evidence that the chips are anything but primer paint. The only evidence the Bentham team had that they were thermitic was the DSC test, which was done incorrectly and never followed up on.
You get that part, right? Jones and company knew that their test was done in the wrong atmosphere, yet they didn't follow up with the LLNL lab and they didn't rerun their tests in an inert atmosphere. They basically left their own paper for dead. Mark Basile's attempt at a donor funded transparent study has become a laughable flaming train wreck, attacked by the very truthers that sponsored it.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Nah, I'm just watching you back pedal and attempt to refute the purveyor of the theory you still desperately cling to. Even though he admits it to be flawed.
"It wasn't thermite, it was LaClede primer paint. " - /u/Pvt_Hudson_
Guess not. Keep back pedaling and pretending you have evidence for other unknown paints. I'll keep watching you tap dance.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
You keep getting your jollies quoting that one sentence back to me over and over again. Hopefully no one will notice the stuff you're not addressing.
This is, what, the 3rd or 4th time you've evaded the botched DSC test and the utter failure of the Bentham gang to address it, right? Don't worry though, it's only the first time you've tapdanced around Rick Shaddock calling Mark Basile a liar in an email personally sent to one of Basile's most vocal critics.
Guess I found your kryptonite, didn't I? Never known you to be at a loss for a good bullshit excuse PM, but it seems I've found some stuff you can't hand wave away.
Now, go on and be a good puppy dog and quote me back to myself again.
Roll over!
Fetch!
Play dead!
3 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Oh I (and I'm sure, this audience you refer to) notice your attempts at a topic shift. I just won't participate. You presented your theory. You were refuted by the purveyor of the same theory / your own source.
You'll have to dance for your dinner pvt. Quite the tap dance considering your own source admits the theory is flawed.
This audience continues to await proof that the chips are now an "unknown" primer paint. But so far, all we've seen is dancing.
If this audience wants to see my response to your (now) topic shift, I'll be happy to link them to the last time(s) we discussed it. Which you danced away from.
But as for you, I'll stay on topic.
Check!
Check!
Evidence that the red/grey chips = these paints......
Error 404. Evidence not found.
2 Akareyon 2015-12-10
Can confirm. Source: am audience.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Obvious topic shift/distraction is obvious.
"You proved me wrong? Shit... look over here!"
2 Akareyon 2015-12-10
I'm still looking forward to the DSC curve a paint chip generates, be it in oxygen, air or an inert atmosphere...
-2 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
I've provided proof that some of the chips are exactly that. Same XEDS spectra, same ignition temperature, same color, same chemical makeup, same ratio of organic material.
But you've got it all wrong. The burden of proof is on you. We know for a stone cold fact that multiple primer paints were used in the trade towers. We know for a stone cold fact that those primer paints would have been present in the trade center dust. There is zero question of that.
What there isn't is proof that your magical thermite pixie dust was in the towers. The sample claimed to be thermite by Jones doesn't match any known composition of thermite ever seen. Not in XEDS spectra, not in ignition temperature, not in chemical makeup, not in ratio of organic matter. The only evidence that your sample was thermitic came from an improperly done test that the authors never followed up on! Without the DSC test, your red grey chips share almost every property with ordinary steel primer paint and none with thermite.
3 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
As LaClede (in a computer simulation with no physical testing...based on Oystein's own "assumptions" .....but shhhh....don't tell the audience!)
However.....
Awww.....
Sorry! Maybe next time you'll support your theory. Even though the purveyor isn't helping you out much.
-2 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Computer simulation is a completely valid way to develop an XEDS spectra for a sample you have no physical access to.
And Ivan Kmenik did mix up a batch based on factory specs and ran tests on it, so your "no testing" comment is just like the rest of your thermite fantasy.
Complete bullshit.
Yeah, like running a DSC test in a proper atmosphere...or actually checking with a lab who's test results you are trying to replicate...or managing to send a sample to an independent lab within a 3 year time frame.
At the end of the day, you're stuck with dust samples that resemble primer paint in every conceivable way, and don't resemble any form of thermite ever seen.
Maybe next time you should pick a theory championed by scientists who actually have the balls to follow through on their work.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Sorry pvt...
But your computer simulation based on "assumptions" is literally one of the reasons that:
Don't blame me. I didn't say it.
So, again:
Check!
Check!
Evidence that the red/grey chips = these paints......
Error 404. Evidence not found.
Keep begging the audience to believe you. Even though your own source admits the theory to be flawed.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Oh PM, you're still here? What are you still lurking around for?
No need to apologize, I knew you didn't have the balls to address the massive holes in the thermite theory, this is no surprise to me.
And he's completely right. Some of the red grey chips are not specifically LaClede. They are still a mixture of iron oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy resin, which absent any evidence to the contrary, makes them primer paint.
They are made up of iron oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy resin. Just like every steel primer paint known to man.
Evidence that these same chips are thermitic?...
404, evidence not found...
Too bad that DSC test was hopelessly fucked up and never followed up on, or you might be able to hang your hat on it. Too bad Mark Basile hasn't figured out how to write a cheque or FedEx a package in 3 years, or you might have more info to work with.
Instead you have a red substance made up of iron oxide, Kaolinite clay and epoxy resin present in ruins we know contained red steel primer paint.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
I think you've officially lost it pvt. You messaged me. I responded. That's how this works. And that's how it's going to continue to work. And you're going to eventually complain about it.
Unless you're referring to the time lapse between your last message and my response. In which case, I remind you that sometimes people have other things to do. Sleep is a bit more important than you. No offense.
No need for the admission. I already knew the theory was flawed. So does Oystein. You continue to lack evidence that the chips are indeed primer paint.
So it isn't Tnemec. Got it.
So it isn't LaClede. Got it.
And you can't prove it to be another primer paint now that you're tap dancing away from your claim
No one is going to prove your unsupported theory for you pvt.
Sorry.
Sorry
Sorry
Sorry
As Mohr so succinctly put it:
Would you bet your reddit account again pvt??
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
And you haven't addressed a single one of the points I raised. Not the screwed up DSC test, not the complete lack of follow up by the Jones team, not Basile taking $5000 of donor money and vanishing like a thief in the night, and not Rick Shaddock throwing Basile under the bus and accusing him of dishonesty.
If you aren't going to address those points, why are you still replying? You're wasting my time.
I provided evidence that someof the chips are indeed primer paint. Same XEDS spectra, same chemical composition, same ignition temperature, same color.
There is no evidence that the chips were thermitic. They don't share a single property of any thermite ever seen. Not chemical makeup, not ratio of organic material, not ignition temperature. Nothing.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264234
Oooops. Guess not. Looks like primer paint in fire produces Iron microspheres.
So, like I said, if you aren't going to address the DSC test cock up, or the Bentham team leaving their own paper for dead, or Basile being attacked by one of his staunchest supporters due to lack of results, stop wasting my time.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Your off topic "points" don't support your unproven paint hypothesis. I already told you, I'm staying on topic. You want to switch to Basile because you are embarrassed that your claim:
has been disproven. But it isn't my job to help you prove that now the chips are some other primer paint that you can't identify. That's all you.
And I already told you that if our audience wants to see my response to the DSC, I'll be happy to link to my lengthy response that you tap danced and ran away from in our previous conversation on the exact same topic.
However, once again, I'm staying in topic. You claimed LaClede. You were proven wrong by your own source. Now you're claiming an unknown paint. So... find it and prove it. No one is going to help you. Not even your own sources apparently.
0 of your attempts at topic shifting prove the actual topic. You claimed LaClede. You were proven wrong. But you're still desperately clinging to primer paint. And yet, you can't prove it.
If I'm wasting your time, why are you still responding with off topic comments? You must have a lot of time to waste.
Nope. Not the ones in question from Harritt/Jones anyway.
It isn't Tnemec
It isn't LaClede.
You can't prove it's paint.
Sorry.
Based on a computer model based on the authors own "assumptions." Which of course, is one of the reasons:
Interesting.
"Dr. Harrit has never claimed that thermitic reactions were the sole method of melting steel.
He does not believe that an ordinary wood fire in a steel barrel is going to heat primer paint to the point that iron oxide will melt into iron-rich microspheres.
Dave's test is a mess just like is infamous steel wool hand waving.
Take an old steel barrel (likely heavily contaminated with welding-created iron-rich microspheres), dump in a pile of wood fuel, burn off the primer paint from steel, extract steel from debris sludge at the bottom of the barrel, scrap off residue and examine.
Two iron-rich microspheres are found and are immediately attributed to the burned primer paint.
The possibility of contamination being the source of Dave's discovery of a couple of microspheres is never acknowledged or considered.
Why only two?
Why not a myriad of various microspheres, spheroids etc?
How strange that in all the heat experiments previously reported on primer paints, iron-rich microspheres were not discovered.
Who knew it was so easy.
Dr. Harrit replied to me that Dave's test was rubbish and that when Dave publishes his work, Dr. Harrit will gladly respond"
You guys all seem to have trouble getting published on this matter.
Sorry
Sorry
Sorry. I continue to await some kind of primer paint proof. What's taking so long? You seem to have a lot of free time.
-1 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
You did? I don't recall that at all.
I recall you posting nonsense from a blogger named "Ziggi", who has no affiliation with the study, in order to hand wave away the fucked up DSC test.
I recall you not having an answer at all for why the DSC test was never followed up on, or why the authors of your paper never contacted the LLNL lab, or why a test in an inert atmosphere was never performed even though Stephen Jones said it would be best.
As far as my points being "off topic", the comment of mine that your initial reply to jacks1000 daisy chained off of specifically mentioned the screwed up DSC test, and the Basile debacle. It seems that those points are completely on topic.
Actually the simulated XEDS spectra is based off of the materials sheet for LaClede primer. No assumptions needed.
There is also the batch that Ivan Kmenik mixed up and tested based on that same materials sheet.
So, let's hear it PM.
Why was the DSC test done incorrectly?
Why was the LLNL lab never contacted prior to the DSC test to confirm what atmosphere it should be ran in?
Why was the LLNL lab not contacted after it became known that the DSC test was incorrectly done? Jones himself said following up with them was necessary, yet no one did. Why?
Why has no one attempted a DSC test on the red/grey chips in an inert atmosphere? Jones said it would be for the best. Basile agreed that it would be for the best. Yet no one has run one...why?
Why has it taken over 3 years and $5000 of donor money for the Mark Basile follow up study, which to this point has produced absolutely zero results?
Why is Rick Shaddock (who set up the donation page through ANETA in November of 2012 and was one of Basile's biggest backers) now accusing him of dishonesty?
Try sacking up and answering these points that you keep ducking. You disagree that the red grey chips are paint. Duly noted.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Wow, what a long, off topic response. You went from at least part of your comments being on topic, to none of it. Do you think if you just keep making them longer, the audience won't notice? And why are you still begging me to go off topic? I literally just told you that if the audience wants that information, I will link them. You were already given the information. You simply want to talk about it again because you were proven wrong about the primer paint. That is literally the topic. And again, you can attempt a topic shift if you like. I will not participate. I will continually point out that your theory about the primer paint has not been proven or even supported. In fact, the primer paint you claim has been disavowed by your own sources. Make your comments as long as you like. I will respond to the portions that actually address the topic.
I hope you'll stay on topic from now on , but I "wouldn't bet my balls on it."
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
http://imgur.com/bJ7RXZ2
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Thanks for pointing out that the topic is that primer paint is unproven and incorrect. But I already knew that. So does Oystein.
You see, that's where you jumped in. Not sure why you'd embarrass yourself by pointing that out.
Good thing I didn't "bet my balls on it!"
Cute pic though.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
You're the one that chose to jump into a conversation I was having with another poster, and you chose to jump in after the DSC test and the Basile study had been raised.
Therefore those issues were on topic, despite any whining you may do to the contrary.
So, tick tock tick tock. Ever planning on addressing these questions you lightweight? Or are you just going to dance around them and shout "off topic" every time they get brought up?
I'd hate to think you're throwing in the towel on your precious paper.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
No. I chose to jump into exactly what I quoted. That's why I quoted it pvt. You literally just pointed that out with your cute pic.
I guess you really don't know how reddit works.
Just more stalling/topic shifting from you.
"Maybe if I write tick tock, I'll anger him into going off topic with me."
Adorable, but no.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
Right, so no answer for those points yet again.
It's fun to have a bat to bludgeon your goofy ass with every time the thermite topic comes up.
Have a nice day.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Please beg me to go off topic again! Please! I enjoy watching you attempt to squirm away from the fact that your primer hypothesis remains unsupported and even refuted/abandoned by its purveyors!
LaClede indeed....
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
That's an interesting rebuttal. Thanks.
The Jones quote regarding the incorrect DSC test is from his account on 911blogger. The info regarding how the proper LLNL lab test was ran was taken from emails from both authors of the paper.
2 Greg_Roberts_0985 2015-12-10
NIST NCSTAR 1 (p.182)
ibidem, p. 184
NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, p.56
Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers (Rehm et al)
NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 174
2 cttechnician 2015-12-10
But can steel beams melt jet fuel?!
Sorry, sorry. But yeah, no, if you look at the numbers even when you take into account all the other shit burning around it, it still wouldn't have been hot enough to melt steel. You'd have needed thermite for that.
1 jesuitsinister 2015-12-10
Aluminum can't slice steel beams - no planes on 9/11
0 BingoRage 2015-12-10
The melted metal formed in "the pile", where days of burning and debris insulation increased the temperatures sufficiently to melt steel, as well as the softer metals (aluminum, magnesium zinc, etc.), some of which would also burn and increase the heat.
-1 madafaku 2015-12-10
oh shit he's got a point... better make a meme of that
-5 henkkaize 2015-12-10
Oh no not again.
-7 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Gage doesn't want to have to go back to earning his money in an honest way.
8 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Gage earns his money in an honest way; after all, people voluntarily give AE911Truth money so Gage can do exactly what he does.
He has a lot of support from the survivors and family members of the victims of 9/11.
You, on the other hand, do not.
-3 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Do not what? Have the support of the survivors and family members of the victims of 9/11? Why would I need their support?
5 jacks1000 2015-12-10
For what, to spout bullshit and lies about AE911Truth?
No, you don't need anyone's support for that.
-7 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Right. Gage does. Because he likes money.
7 TeChinga 2015-12-10
Jesus Christ I've been seeing this shill everywhere. Fuck of
4 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Whatever you are trying to do, it's not working.
-4 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Speak my mind?
3 lexlightning 2015-12-10
Some minds aren't worth mentioning.
-1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Such as Gage's. Seriously, fuck that con man.
2 lexlightning 2015-12-10
I was referring to your mind...but since we are on the subject, what evidence do you have for your judgments of Gage's negative motivations?
1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Dude pockets tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and has produced nothing. The one "nanothermite" study he supported was debunked and mysteriously has no money to get it retested at another lab using the correct method.
2 jacks1000 2015-12-10
He makes 80k a year - he took a paycut to help the 9/11 truth movement. He has produced, by far, the BEST materials on 9/11.
You are completely full of shit, but then again, you are perfectly aware of that.
It's not working, no one is buying your defamation of the 9/11 truth movement.
0 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Why do you think I'm full of shit? The lab's method on the "nanothermite" was proven faulty and they never acknowledged their mistake or got the sample tested at another lab. In the science world, we call this "fraud".
2 jacks1000 2015-12-10
No it wasn't.
LOL - you're not a scientist.
0 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Keep denying reality. See how that works out for you.
You're right; I'm not multiple people.
2 jacks1000 2015-12-10
You haven't mentioned anything real, you are literally just making up lies with no factual basis whatsoever in your transparent attempt to discredit the truth movement.
It's not working; certainly, no one here other than the obvious trolls are buying it.
You can type "discredited" all day long, it doesn't change reality.
1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
I'm not the one who used the wrong method, interpreted the results in a fraudulent manner and then paid to publish in a journal that caused the editor to quit over the fraud.
Maybe you should spend a little time investigating the background of the lab and employees who did the tests. It's all shrouded in shady, shady procedure.
It doesn't fool us scientists, which is why we haven't taken the study seriously and aren't holding our breath for a second study.
2 jacks1000 2015-12-10
None of that happened, you just made that up.
2 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
/u/subzeb8 is simply using old, recycled, previously debunked Faither spiel. He can't back any of it up which is why he's afraid to get specific.
3 jacks1000 2015-12-10
He's simply lying.
2 Akareyon 2015-12-10
And doing so knowingly, that's the worst part.
2 jacks1000 2015-12-10
Yes, his disinformation and lies are clearly purposeful.
Fortunately, they are rather transparent as well.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Well nice job calling him out on it.
2 lexlightning 2015-12-10
You're full of shit and it's obvious. Learn to type better.
2 Akareyon 2015-12-10
You mean, has honest as NISTs chief engineer John Gross who claims to know of no reports of molten steel at GZ, and posed next to a cheesified steel beam at the scrap yard?
Or as honest as lead investigator Shyam Sunder, who explained what a controlled demolition looks like and went on pretending WTC7 was not a CD?
Or as honest as Prof. ZP Bažant, who claims gravity alone caused the collapse of the twins after asserting that W[g] > W[p] by an order of magnitude - with the stated aim to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen?
Or as honest as EPA admin Christie Whitman, who would not tire to assure New York that the air was save to breathe?
As honest as Dick Cheney, George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, you mean?
Go away and come back if you have something less stupid to say.
-1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Sounds like you said enough stupid for both of us.
2 Akareyon 2015-12-10
Sounds like these waters are too deep for your swimming skills :)
-7 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Gage doesn't want to have to go back to earning his money in an honest way.
5 jacks1000 2015-12-10
For what, to spout bullshit and lies about AE911Truth?
No, you don't need anyone's support for that.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
Well nice job calling him out on it.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-12-10
hmmmm...
hmm.......
hmmmm intensifies!
It's funny to watch you struggle.
0 Pvt_Hudson_ 2015-12-10
You're the one that chose to jump into a conversation I was having with another poster, and you chose to jump in after the DSC test and the Basile study had been raised.
Therefore those issues were on topic, despite any whining you may do to the contrary.
So, tick tock tick tock. Ever planning on addressing these questions you lightweight? Or are you just going to dance around them and shout "off topic" every time they get brought up?
I'd hate to think you're throwing in the towel on your precious paper.