Evidence of explosives in WTC buildings?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Evidence of explosives in WTC buildings?
Topic Started: Sep 18 2008, 10:23 PM (1,411 Views)
scott75	Sep 18 2008, 10:23 PM Post #1
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	In another forum, I recently wrote about an article from Steven Jones', which can be found here: http://physics911.net/stevenjones A poster had this to say: Quote: Steven Jones' main claim appears to be that the "fingerprint" of thermite is found in the WTC dust. What is this "fringerprint"? Sulpher and Iron and trace elements such as potassium. The WTC's drywall is Sulpher based. The Iron is used in computers and practically everything else office based. Potassium is used in concrete. When it comes to thermites main byproduct (aluminium oxide and barium nitrate), Steven Jones doesn't even report finding these. The only thing I can think of to respond to this is that I believe Steven Jones never went to the site when it was being cleaned up and couldn't look for these things. Anyone know anything else I could say? Edited by scott75, Sep 18 2008, 10:23 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


DoYouEverWonder	Sep 19 2008, 05:07 AM Post #2
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	A friend on mine over on Progressive Independent is a metallurgist. Here's his explanation of Jones' work means: Quote: Many of us here at PI are aware of the broad outlines of Professor Jones' work.His meticulous documentation of the dust secured from an apartment about one hundred to two hundred meters from the WTC Towers, his analysis of the dust by Scanning Electron Microscopy and the XRay Spectrometry that showed high levels of sulfur in the iron spheres he discovered are now part of our history. In this post, I want to examine,in detail, in laymen's terms, what these discoveries mean both from a scientific and political point of view. First a little review.The dust Dr.Jones obtained from Mrs.McaNally's apartment, showed almost perfect spheres of iron of various diameters.Those spheres numbered in the billions.The analysis also showed sulfur levels about two orders of magnitude greater than what would have been present in the steel structure of the WTC Towers.Typically such steels contain 0.010 percent sulfur. Professor Jones' samples uniformly exceeded 0.15 percent sulfur. Let us first look at what the spherical shapes and the wide ranging diameters mean. The spherical shapes mean that the steel spheres froze from a liquid state,the shape indicating that the liquids surface tension conferred the spherical shape. The large number of sizes of these spheres indicate that the liquid from which they were formed were subjected to high pressures that atomized the molten steel.In fact such molten metal atomization is a very common method of making steel or iron powders. Lastly, the fact that these spheres were found at such a long distance away from the source of the molten steel indicates that an explosion had hurled these particles to the long distances they had to travel before solidification.One can precisely calculate the forces needed from the distance traveled and the particle size distributions one finds in the samples. This remarkable set of data from a simple elegant experiment sheds light on what exactly happened that day. The high sulfurs, of course, indicate that Thermates were in use at the Towers to cut the core and perimeter columns to prepare the structure for demolition.The visual evidence of molten pools of steel confirms that a large number of sections were thus prepared.The evidence of a large molten pool of steel in the bathtub amounting to between 50 to hundred tons of molten steel indicates premeditation and organization of the cutting activity. I have not yet had a chance to examine the other elements and their exact concentration in the molten steel.I am specifically alluding to Aluminum, Copper, Zinc, Vanadium and Manganese which by their concentrations can lead us to the manufacturers of the Thermates who sell proprietary products involving these elements. As to the explosives that completed the demolition of the Towers, we know that any explosive that can hurl these steel particles to the long distances they had to traverse would have been very powerful indeed.Things like C4 or RDX come to mind.There are,of course,others.The rest of the residue that Dr.Jones' group is analyzing contains this evidence.We should have a good idea of what the evidence shows. This summary pretty well captures all the experimental evidence. http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=9270&mesg_id=9270&listing_type=search
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Headspin	Sep 19 2008, 06:10 AM Post #3
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	scott75 Sep 18 2008, 10:23 PM In another forum, I recently wrote about an article from Steven Jones', which can be found here: http://physics911.net/stevenjones A poster had this to say: Quote: Steven Jones' main claim appears to be that the "fingerprint" of thermite is found in the WTC dust. What is this "fringerprint"? Sulpher and Iron and trace elements such as potassium. The WTC's drywall is Sulpher based. The Iron is used in computers and practically everything else office based. Potassium is used in concrete. When it comes to thermites main byproduct (aluminium oxide and barium nitrate), Steven Jones doesn't even report finding these. The only thing I can think of to respond to this is that I believe Steven Jones never went to the site when it was being cleaned up and couldn't look for these things. Anyone know anything else I could say? Hello Scott, "When it comes to thermites main byproduct (aluminium oxide and barium nitrate), Steven Jones doesn't even report finding these." barium nitrate is not a main byproduct of thermites (nor a necessary ingredient). Jones did mention in some of his lectures that he did find barium in some samples, so I would guess that this is just another anti-truth talking point which he is just repeating. Aluminum-Oxide is largely given off as a gaseous dust ("white ash" as jones describes it). Plenty of visual evidence exists for this white ash - steal beams falling with white ash streaming from the beam ends can be seen clearly in many videos and pictures. It is false to imply that Jones doesn't report aluminium and oxygen. Jones extremely high temperatures paper page 2, 3, XEDS spectra shows significant peaks of aluminium and oxygen: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf "The WTC's drywall is Sulpher based. The Iron is used in computers and practically everything else office based". This is a typical irrelevant and obfuscatory response, not to mention wild speculation to imply this is what Jones found. By wildly speculating like this, he is denying the scientific process in Jones work. Professor Jones found sulphur and aluminium as significant constituents of the microspheres as shown by the XEDS spectra. some of these iron-aluminium microspheres were hollow like bubbles with sulphur deposits inside. Gypsum plaster and computers? Douglas Adams' improbabilty-drive aside, i think this is patently absurd. Iron-Aluminium-Sulpher microspheres do not form from heating plastic and gypsum drywall on top of steal beams and aluminium cladding. if he thinks they do, then it should be easy enough for him to create an experiment to demonstrate this - this is the scientific method and it trumps any bull anyone says in a forum. I would suggest there are many powerful and well resourced people who would willingly fund such a project. But we do not need to do this experiment, because it is self-evident that such a notion of computers, plasterboard, steel and aluminium would melt into sulfur, iron and aluminum spherical microsphere bubbles due to natural building fires initiated with jet fuel is inherently absurd. Steven Jones' main claim appears to be that the "fingerprint" of thermite is found in the WTC dust. What is this "fringerprint"? Sulpher and Iron and trace elements such as potassium. The WTC's drywall is Sulpher based. The Iron is used in computers and practically everything else office based. Potassium is used in concrete. Is he suggesting that it is impossible to detect thermite-arson? it appears that he is by stating that thermite constituents are naturally found in various ordinary building materials and contents, so therefore (his logic goes) it doesn't have to be thermite. If this is what he is saying then how does anyone get convicted of thermite-arson? has he found the perfect crime <sarcasm>? Thermite arson investigations and convictions involve sampling with XEDS, the same method used by Professor Jones on the wtc dust samples and the wtc metal samples. Edited by Headspin, Sep 19 2008, 08:17 AM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 21 2008, 12:56 PM Post #4
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	DoYouEverWonder, looks good. The only thing Klatoo said that doesn't make sense is this: Quote: The evidence of a large molten pool of steel in the bathtub amounting to between 50 to hundred tons of molten steel indicates premeditation and organization of the cutting activity. 50 to a 100 tons of steel doesn't fit in a bathtub :-p.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 21 2008, 12:57 PM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Thanks a bundle Headspin. Can I quote you on most of what you said for sciforums ;-)? Edited by scott75, Sep 21 2008, 07:18 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


DoYouEverWonder	Sep 21 2008, 03:29 PM Post #6
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	scott75 Sep 21 2008, 12:56 PM DoYouEverWonder, looks good. The only thing Klatoo said that doesn't make sense is this: Quote: The evidence of a large molten pool of steel in the bathtub amounting to between 50 to hundred tons of molten steel indicates premeditation and organization of the cutting activity. 50 to a 100 tons of steel doesn't fit in a bathtub :-p. The 'bathtub' refers to the 16 acre site the WTC was built on top of. However, I still have not seen evidence that there was that much molten metal that persisted after the collapses. (Keep in mind Klatoo's post was written months ago, when many of us still took the 'evidence' of molten metal at fact value.) What I have found since then is a lot of evidence, that the steel was very, very hot and that the heat persisted for a long time. Hot steel will ignite any combustibles that land on it, so that moving the debris around, would be enough to restart sub-level fires. The real question should be how did the buried steel get so hot to begin with? The molten melt meme just gives the debunkers more ammo for their twisted logic. Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Sep 21 2008, 03:31 PM.
Posts: 433 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


scott75	Sep 22 2008, 06:20 PM Post #7
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Hey everyone. KennyJC just responded again. This time I'll just link to his post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2018383&postcount=28 I have to admit that at this point, it's all a bit over my head. I feel like I'm dealing with experts on all sides and I'm more like a messenger carrying messages back and forth :-p.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Headspin	Sep 22 2008, 06:53 PM Post #8
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	RKOwens has had his ass handed to him so many times here, that it isn't even funny anymore. "water is hydrogen with two oxygen atoms added" - so what's that then? HO2 ? "It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples." - false, one sample was taken just hours after the collapse of the south tower. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONLeXErTbzU "Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses" - I prefer to consider the wortk of Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics Adelphi University, over annonymous internet personality Sir Robin (ran away) RKOwens who doesn't even know the chemical formula for water: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf "The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise." - false, the RJ Lee reports the iron content within the dust to be 5-6% (100 tons of iron spherules), page 24: http://tinyurl.com/2z8ew9 "Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures." - We know they were not created after the first hour of collapse (sample taken at 11am on 911) which rules out any rubble pile processes etc. we know they did not form because of the collapse (Professor Monroe link above). "Can he at least set up an experiment to show how thermate could be used to cut through a steel beam similar to ones he claims were cut on the WTC with the speed and precision necessary? I would think that a LOT of thermate would have to be used and it would be anything but quick." - I would suggest that this speculation is inaccurate - see papers below, although i too would like to see experiments. Here is a lawrence livermore laboratory publication regarding the capabilities of nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html Here is a department of defence publication on nanothermite http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf Edited by Headspin, Sep 22 2008, 08:29 PM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 22 2008, 07:10 PM Post #9
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	"So basically, Steven Jones' claim that there were "uncommon chemical elements in abundance" is invalid when you consider these elements were common throughout the building." That is misrepresenting Professors Jones work. That is not a central claim to anything he has published. i think the author needs to consider his papers rather than anti-truth sites falsely representing his position. It is clear that Jones work is being mis-represented by RKOwnes and KennyJC, i would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and generously assume they have not read professor Jones papers, so here they are for their attention: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf "Steven Jones as usual ignores all other possabilities" - false and probably libelous. Edited by Headspin, Sep 22 2008, 07:10 PM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 22 2008, 07:21 PM Post #10
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	"Don't be fooled by the blatant lies and gross incompetence of people like Steven Jones" perhaps he means "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" This from RKOwned, the man than doesn't know what the chemical symbol for water is and claims the dust cloud knocked off all the fireproofing from building 7. RKOwned is the charlatan, and in no position to criticise anyone, let alone professors.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 22 2008, 07:42 PM Post #11
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	The process used to analyse the previously molten Iron microspheres was XEDS - this involves firing electons at the tiny wtc dust samples (microspheres). when the electrons hit the sample they will eventually collide with the various atoms in the sample, the atom gets excited and gives off an xray. these x-rays are measured and tell us what element the electron struck, the results of these x-rays are plotted on a graph showing peaks which indicate what ELEMENTS and their AMOUNTS found in the tiny sample. The overall result of the graph produces a chemical signature, like a fingerprint, very specific, showing precisely the elemental content of the sample. Jones work shows the signatures found in the wtc microspheres samples match precisely those of thermite residue samples. so if you understand the above, it should be obvious why statements like "there is a world of difference between aluminum and aluminum oxide" are bogus. Edited by Headspin, Sep 22 2008, 07:44 PM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 22 2008, 08:21 PM Post #12
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	All parts of the video are recommended viewing, however part 5 is the specific part detailing the time of sample collection, disproving any speculation regarding iron microsphere formation in the rubble pile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONLeXErTbzU
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


kamikaze	Sep 22 2008, 09:13 PM Post #13
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #849 Joined: 09/15/08	This is KennyJC, and I thought since Scott has since removed himself from debating me and being a go-between with the apparent experts on this forum, that I may as well post here. Basically, Scott is a nutjob who doesn't know much about 9/11 and you guys are perhaps the nutjobs that know a lot about what likeminded tinhat wearers say. Firstly, I notice that you pretty much ignored everything RKOwens4 said, instead focusing on a simple error he made in getting oxygen and hydrogen the wrong way round. Perhaps he would have taken more care if he'd have known I was going to paste what he said to Scott. So I appologise to him for not asking his permission. Nevertheless, please address the point he made about barium nitrate and aluminium oxide not being found in the dust despite claims by Steven Jones that thermate was used. Is there or is there not a clear distinction between barium and barium nitrate, or aluminium and aluminium oxide? Since you made a hilarious statement alluding that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide, it should not be a problem for you to find this in the dust samples. To my knowledge, Steven Jones did not even report barium in his findings initially, and it wasn't until later that he started claiming this. Not that it matters, since barium nitrate would have been the smoking gun here. As for your materials on the microspheres, you have thrown a lot of material at me and I'm not going to take it on at this time. I did however glance at the title of the paper of this kook you admire and laughed out loud; molten steel? When will tin hatters get over melted steel? When has there ever been proof of liquid steel anywhere? In the first few paragraphs he talks about "molten steel" being ejected from the south tower even though it is far more likely that it was molten aluminium. Also, I should make it clear that the quoted text dealing with the microspheres from my sciforums post was not from RKOwens4, but NASA scientist Ryan Mackey.
Posts: 1 Group: Members Member #849 Joined: 09/15/08


JFK	Sep 22 2008, 09:50 PM Post #14
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	kamikaze Sep 22 2008, 09:13 PM This is KennyJC, and I thought since Scott has since removed himself from debating me and being a go-between with the apparent experts on this forum, that I may as well post here. Basically, Scott is a nutjob who doesn't know much about 9/11 and you guys are perhaps the nutjobs that know a lot about what likeminded tinhat wearers say. Firstly, I notice that you pretty much ignored everything RKOwens4 said, instead focusing on a simple error he made in getting oxygen and hydrogen the wrong way round. Perhaps he would have taken more care if he'd have known I was going to paste what he said to Scott. So I appologise to him for not asking his permission. Nevertheless, please address the point he made about barium nitrate and aluminium oxide not being found in the dust despite claims by Steven Jones that thermate was used. Is there or is there not a clear distinction between barium and barium nitrate, or aluminium and aluminium oxide? Since you made a hilarious statement alluding that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide, it should not be a problem for you to find this in the dust samples. To my knowledge, Steven Jones did not even report barium in his findings initially, and it wasn't until later that he started claiming this. Not that it matters, since barium nitrate would have been the smoking gun here. As for your materials on the microspheres, you have thrown a lot of material at me and I'm not going to take it on at this time. I did however glance at the title of the paper of this kook you admire and laughed out loud; molten steel? When will tin hatters get over melted steel? When has there ever been proof of liquid steel anywhere? In the first few paragraphs he talks about "molten steel" being ejected from the south tower even though it is far more likely that it was molten aluminium. Also, I should make it clear that the quoted text dealing with the microspheres from my sciforums post was not from RKOwens4, but NASA scientist Ryan Mackey. 3 strikes... Your OUT. 14 day suspension. Nice first post. Edited by JFK, Sep 22 2008, 09:52 PM.
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


hiphopopotamus	Sep 22 2008, 10:40 PM Post #15
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	You guys need to get off Jones' nuts; the guy is a particle physicist and not a structural engineer. If I want to know about virtual pairs and Hawking radiation, I will go to him. If I want to know about planes hitting buildings, demolitions, and general structural-mechanical know how, I will go other places. He has about as much to say on subject as a neurosurgeon has to say about a snakes dicks. There are similarities in what they studied, but nothing qualifies him as an expert on the subject. Personally, as a chem engineer, I probably understand way more about the forces involved in either a controlled demolition or jet fuels on structural supports than he does. Yet you do not see me writing ridiculous position papers on things I did not study for. Edited by hiphopopotamus, Sep 22 2008, 10:42 PM.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 04:55 AM Post #16
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	"Firstly, I notice that you pretty much ignored everything RKOwens4 said" - no, i addressed everything he said, you simply did not read my responses. "Nevertheless, please address the point he made about barium nitrate and aluminium oxide not being found in the dust" - barium nitrate is not a requirement for a aluminothermic reaction as I pointed out in post#3 above, Jones paper explains this which I linked to in post#5, specifically pages 79-81 here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf or you could have searched for the word "barium" in the above document if you had the intention of understanding the discussion rather than just the intention of attacking and ridiculing like a big giant baby. You should by now understand that barium nitrate is not a necessary ingredient, RKOwens is saying it is not a cake because there is no chocolate. "Is there or is there not a clear distinction between barium and barium nitrate" - barium is an element, barium nitrate is a compound of elements barium, nitrogen and oxygen. XEDS was used to examine the microspheres, it detects elements and their amounts, it does not detect compounds as i said in post#11. "or aluminium and aluminium oxide?" - read the paper and look at the graphs, the XEDS graphs show peaks of aluminum and oxygen, pages 2 and 3 : http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf "Since you made a hilarious statement alluding that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide" - i never said such a thing. you need to read post#3 again and check your reading comprehension skills. "To my knowledge, Steven Jones did not even report barium in his findings initially" - you may be correct about this, i do not recall accurately, but his papers are published for all to see and scrutinse. I remember him talking about barium in one of his earlier presentations, he may have been talking about the US Geological Survey report which did find barium, or he may have been talking about finding barium in his own samples, I suspect the later but I am happy to be corrected, either way it does not negate the point above that barium is not a requirement. "and it wasn't until later that he started claiming this." - this is just an attempt to discredit rather than address the data. "As for your materials on the microspheres, you have thrown a lot of material at me and I'm not going to take it on at this time." - then you have no right making any judgements and throwing the insults around. "even though it is far more likely that it was molten aluminium." - molten aluminium is silver, not yellow-orange. there are plenty of threads already on the subject, it is pretty clear it is not molten aluminum. "Also, I should make it clear that the quoted text dealing with the microspheres from my sciforums post was not from RKOwens4, but NASA scientist Ryan Mackey." - a scientist saying something does not make what he says scientific, his "science" has been discredited here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html and here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf hiphopopotamus You guys need to get off Jones' nuts; the guy is a particle physicist and not a structural engineer. <snip appalling appeal to authority argument> Jones' work is available to be scrutinised by anyone, no matter what their qualifications or experience. NIST refuse to even discuss this with him, despite their team compromising the pioneers of nanothermite technology, preferring to just deny the data. Edited by Headspin, Sep 23 2008, 05:27 AM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 05:53 AM Post #17
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	kamikaze Sep 22 2008, 09:13 PM molten steel? When will tin hatters get over melted steel? When has there ever been proof of liquid steel anywhere? from post 203, here http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/242875/9/#new "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" - Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California Berkeley. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091901astanehfinds&scale=0#a091901astanehfinds
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 05:58 AM Post #18
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Kevin Ryan explains with clarity in a very recent radio interview, covering a lot of what has been discussed in this thread: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/ryan_kevin/mp3/20080922_kpfk_kevinryan.mp3
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 23 2008, 07:39 AM Post #19
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Your posts look good Headspin. I must admit I'm a bit saddened that Kenny was suspended for 14 days on his first post but I know that he can definitely be fairly rude sometimes. In any case, thanks a lot for responding to his points anyway Headspin. If he responds to your points, I will link his post again. I completely admit that at this point, I simply can't respond to his points as I don't know the answers. I am happy that he seems to think that you guys know more then I do on this as I fully agree :-p.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 08:01 AM Post #20
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	How many insults did he squeeze into his first post, 5? 6? and at the end we find he hasn't even read Jones' papers The rules encourage good behaviour and promote good information. nobody wants to read through or react to pages and pages of insults and squabbling, but then i think perhaps that is exactly the point with some of the message board provocateurs out there. Edited by Headspin, Sep 23 2008, 08:08 AM.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 23 2008, 03:08 PM Post #21
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Headspin Sep 23 2008, 08:01 AM How many insults did he squeeze into his first post, 5? 6? and at the end we find he hasn't even read Jones' papers The rules encourage good behaviour and promote good information. nobody wants to read through or react to pages and pages of insults and squabbling, but then i think perhaps that is exactly the point with some of the message board provocateurs out there. I think a big part of the problem is that this is such an emotional issue for many people. Emotions take over and then, yes, insults can ensue and meaningful debate can die. I think I'm relatively good at controlling and channelling my emotions to prevent this type of thing from happening. Over at sciforums, despite their claim that personal attacks aren't allowed, they do in fact occur with some frequency, but if only one side is doing the attacking, a fair amount of meaningful discussion can still occur. In any case, I will attempt to synthesize your response to Kenny in the following thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84956&page=2
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 23 2008, 03:49 PM Post #22
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Headspin showed me where Kenny seems to be getting some of his information from in regards to the WTC Collapse. I link to it below and ask if someone here could counter what ElMondoHummus has to say: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124559 I understand that whether or not there was barium is not really an important issue. However, Hummus says more then just this.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 23 2008, 08:42 PM Post #23
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	I have recently gotten 2 arguments from a 9/11 official story person: 1- Contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour. 2- He contends that gasoline fires can melt unprotected steel. I myself remember hearing about a certain truck that apparently melted steel when it caught fire. I'm suspicious as it seems that gasoline simply can't do this; that it would in essence break a law of physics.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


JFK	Sep 23 2008, 08:53 PM Post #24
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	scott75 Sep 23 2008, 08:42 PM I have recently gotten 2 arguments from a 9/11 official story person: 1- Contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour. 2- He contends that gasoline fires can melt unprotected steel. I myself remember hearing about a certain truck that apparently melted steel when it caught fire. I'm suspicious as it seems that gasoline simply can't do this; that it would in essence break a law of physics. Jet engines do not use gasoline for fuel. They use a fuel which is similar in composition and BTU output when burned as Diesel fuel and Kerosine. Gasoline, Diesel, or Kerosene will not melt steel without a properly proportioned oxidizer.
Posts: 4,211 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 09:25 PM Post #25
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	scott75 Sep 23 2008, 08:42 PM 1- Contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour. so he can prove that can he? perhaps with a scientiifc repeatable experiment? ...or is he just quoting unscientific speculation put out by NIST? Quote: 2- He contends that gasoline fires can melt unprotected steel. I myself remember hearing about a certain truck that apparently melted steel when it caught fire. I'm suspicious as it seems that gasoline simply can't do this; that it would in essence break a law of physics. let's see it then, get a chunk of steel and a can of gasoline and a video camera, lets see it on youtube.
Posts: 974 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2