See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber Than A 5th Grader?
Source:
Rense
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general76/truther.htm
Published: Apr 13, 2007
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2007-04-14 21:15:20 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1754
Comments: 157
Are 911 Truth Deniers Dumber The most subversive show on television is on the Fox TV network. Maybe you've seen it. Hosted by a guy named Jeff Foxworthy, the show is called "Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader?" Hopefully, the show is broadcast to every nation of the world, including China, the Middle East and the English-speaking nations of the former British empire. Why? To show the rest of the world what they already suspect: that most Americans are a bunch of greedy nitwits, numbskulls and knuckleheads. Truly, most Americans are Not smarter than a fifth grader. Indeed, judging from the shows I've seen, quite a few American adults are dumber than a FIRST grader. The adults--and I use that word loosely--who participate on the show are college graduates with good jobs. Some of them graduated with honors--whatever that means in collegiate circles. Uniformly, they perform badly. If ignorance is bliss then most of the adults on the show are positively delirious. They win a few thousand dollars, sometimes a quarter million, but for the most part, look like greedy imbeciles. They ALL remind me of 911 truth deniers. First question: What is jet fuel? Don't know? Yes, you are dumber than a fifth grader. Could a kerosene fire (basically jet fuel) melt steel beams? No, but sometimes it does if the government says it can and the Twin Towers are involved. Sorry, wrong answer. You are dumber than any first grader possessing a basic understanding of a barbecue grill. I'm forever delighted by the faces of the wise children everywhere. They remind me of "Truthers," those citizens concerned with nothing so much as unraveling a great crime against America, convinced we can persuade even the dumbest Americans--and God knows there are millions of them---that steel building do not just fall down at the speed of gravity, no matter how many morons at MIT say they can. Okay: How many sides to a trapezoid? Every Truther, and fifth grader on the show that I happened to watch, knew the answer to that. Four, as in the shape of the WTC-7 foundation. Indeed, one of the World's Most Famous Smart Persons, a professor at MIT named Chomsky, said the perplexing anomalies of 911 didn't really matter to him. Huh? That would be like asking a group of fifth graders how did the Titanic sink? And then remarking to them to ignore the iceberg altogether and focus instead on the weight and volume of the water that filled the ship. All while manipulating computer models to show that a few open portholes caused the Titanic to sink. Because that was EXACTLY what the Kean Commission did to WTC-7. They ignored the collapse of a 600 foot World Trade Center building altogether. And that was EXACTLY what NIST has done also, for the past five years. They have ignored the obvious, ignoring the iceberg, focusing on the floodwater. Are Americans dumber than 5th graders? Yes, especially most of the top scientists working for the US government. For example, a videotape was shown---but not identified---to a top Dutch demolition expert. The videotape was of a 47 story government building collapsing in 6.5 seconds. The Dutch expert---unlike many of the top US experts---said unequivocally that the building had been blown down. A controlled demolition. Indeed, you could show that same videotape to those 5th graders and get the same answer. The chief difference? Neither the Dutch expert nor the 5th graders depend on the US government to pay their salaries, or fund their think tanks or universities. Thus they can answer honestly and without fear of retribution. Magna Cum Laude in Cowardice? Simply look around. Next Question: Who met with the (alleged but never proven) head hijacker's bagman, met him for breakfast on 9-11? If you answered a top Al Qaeda member, you would be WRONG. But if you answered several top US intelligence figures met with the man who provided Mohammed Atta with $100,000 you would be right. Another question. Why couldn't NORAD get even one plane aloft to encounter even one hijacked jet? Was it because our highly trained air force pilots are incompetent and dumber than a 5th grader? How do you feel about that? That the rest of the world thinks we are dumber than a newborn babe for believing that the top air defense in the world--NORAD--couldn't even get ONE fighter jet aloft in ninety minutes, 90 MINUTES? We really are a dumb race of people if we believe 9-11 was a case of incompetence. Dumber still if we accept the excuses from our government officials and haven't demanded the indictment of even ONE person that allowed close to 3,000 citizens be murdered. Debunkers would have you believe the official lie. And it is a masterful lie. They want to keep you dumb; that is their whole purpose. To keep you dumb. To keep you from asking too many questions. But mostly to keep you from demanding answers, and then demanding indictments and convictions. But debunkers are relatively few, and mostly shrewd, manipulative liars. 911 truth deniers, on the other hand---the millions of ordinary folks who adhere to the official story--would have us simply give the US government the benefit of the doubt. When you ask them why, when you point to the string of lies before and after 911, when you point to the murderous government policies post- 911, they stare dumbly, like contestants on that TV game show. On that TV show, however, the 5th graders can sometimes help those dumb adults. But only IF the adults want to be helped. Five years after 911, we Truthers are the fresh-faced students, trying to awaken our compatriots to the correct answers. And in this case, they have a whole lot more to win or lose than a few thousand dollars. Footnote: I would like once again to thank my compatriots at 911blogger.com who provided the illustration. As you can see, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to understand 911. Indeed, most American rocket scientists are probably too dumb. Simply put: Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself, falling nearly as fast as it would fall through empty air, when the only force available is gravity? Sure it can, as long as the object is falling through a heavily-insured white elephant housing sensitive government offices. USAF veteran Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and clearly understood the scam of the NORAD standdown within a few months after 911. He wrote the recent Rense feature, Why No Norad On 911?
Than A 5th Grader?
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
4-13-7
Most 911 debunkers love to quote the number of top US scientists, engineers and architects who deny 911 was an inside job. Luckily, we Truthers can demonstrate that many of these top experts are just plain dumb. How? We need only point to a show like "Smarter Than A 5th Grader," a show that readily indicates how dumb so-called educated American people can be. Even ones with advanced degrees and Cum Laude after their names.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-92) not displayed.
.
.
.
#93. To: SKYDRIFTER (#89)
That theory appears to be a desperate grope to explain away the presence of sulphur and molten metal and an apparent thermite reaction. Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed. I do not find the government story compelling. I do not find the Warren Report compelling, but I do not know who killed JFK either. Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction. The firemen discussing the tower collapse in the below mpg (about 30 sec) opine about a demolition job with timed charges chasing after them. http://algoxy.com/psych/images/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it! BAC, are you the one who carried it across the bridge from Brooklyn? ... 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges. For BAC: I said it was interesting. I did not say it was a new book of the bible. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm Evidence of advanced fusion devices at the WTC: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000-fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC.
The "thermite reaction" requires a particular 'mixture' of materials, along with a high temperature ignition source. That's a long way from a "contact" reaction. The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!) Ordinarily, 'thermite' operates in concert with gravity. You might be able to lose a couple of floor panels, but you couldn't trigger the abrupt collapse of the 47 vertical core columns. I'm still puzzled at the high temperature thresholds; those are tough to account for. I'll have to take a look at the 'micro' device proposition. I was schooled (basics) on fission weapons, but not 'hydrogen' or fusion weapons. There could be something there. Ordinarily, one would think in terms of massive concussion and fallout, but, what if ..... There was definitely something exotic in the building. Ordinarily, I'd guess thermite and cutting charges. Those long-term and high temperatures don't jive with the 'ordinary.'
You do what they eventually did at the WTC site. Use chemical agents. * * * But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site. Now it's your turn. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/12/19/fire_wtc011219.html Last Updated: Thursday, December 20, 2001 | 7:41 AM ET CBC News The fires at the World Trade Center are finally out. More than three months since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 knocked down the twin towers, the fires have been extinguished. "We consider the fire to be out," said New York Fire Department spokesman Robert Calise. Small pockets might still be burning, he added. A firetruck is on standby at the site. The fires that have sent acrid clouds of smoke into the New York atmosphere were fueled by documents and office furniture. Workers clearing debris would often cause flare-ups as smouldering debris was exposed to the air. Firetrucks have sprayed a nearly constant jet of water at the site, and the fires have sometimes slowed down work at the site.
Actually, from the BAC source, the implication seems to be that molten aluminum from the kerosene fire hit steel and caused numerous violent contact thermite reactions. Dr. Greening said, “I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.” Still... Rubbish. In the experiment they melted aluminum and poured it onto steel with rust and various other materials. No thermite reaction occurred. I lack the basic knowledge to evaluate the possibility, or lack thereof, of some sort of small hydrogen fusion device. The idea of a device that could (possibly) generate an extreme blast of heat up the core is interesting. The linked site provides some interesting images.
Thermite is a mixture, by weight, consisting of 8 parts of iron oxide to 3 parts of aluminum. (That would be approximately half and half by volume.) How much thermite was available sort of depends on the supply of aluminum and rust, mixed in the right proportions, that was at the site of the WTC. For BAC: to mix them properly, they would sort of have to be in powder form. You cannot just throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum. Well, being BAC, you might throw your rusty brillo pad at a piece of aluminum, but you would not produce much thermite that way. Then again, maybe that Finnish guy is on to something: Maybe Bush was right. When they attacked the USS Liberty, we didn't fight them there and they followed us here. BAC, thanks for showing us the light and the way!
[BAC] Figure 13(d): Aluminum at ~1000°C How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(e): Aluminum at ca. 1500°C Again. How do you KNOW that is aluminum in that picture? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(f): 99.7% pure aluminum at approximately 1,000° C (Wood/Zebuhr). How do you KNOW that is aluminum or that it is 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? [BAC] Figure 13(g): Aluminum and its tungsten boat.... How do you KNOW that is aluminum or tungsten? Did you TEST it? Was the aluminum at the WTC 99.7% pure? Did you TEST it? Did you certify that the aluminum and the tungsten came from the rubble of the WTC?
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones. 160 were areas mapped and 170 areas examined. NIST called the samples adequate. NIST also used conventional microscopic fractographic metallographic studies of coarsening of carbide phases of thermal excursions. No spheoidization was observed. No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F. Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I guess you weren't paying attention to the news back then. ********** http://pyrocooltech.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=48 ... snip ... The level of destruction, which covers an area of approximately seventeen acres, cannot be accurately described; it must be seen to be fully comprehended. Each floor of the World Trade Center towers comprised an area of one acre. All two hundred and twenty floors are now compressed into an angulated mass of twisted and charred 30 ton I beams. It was beneath these enormous debris piles, and particularly in the sub levels beneath the towers, that the fires continued to burn. As debris removal continued, thermal-imaging scans taken by Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) helicopters revealed numerous super-heated areas below the debris piles. FDNY Incident Command grew increasingly concerned that several of these hot-spot areas were spreading and that they posed an imminent danger to several large Freon tanks that lay buried beneath hundreds of feet of smoldering debris. Hoping to extinguish, or at least to slow the spread of these super-heated areas, FDNY Incident Command turned to a multi purpose fire extinguishment and cooling foam, PYROCOOL FEF, which had been used successfully by, FDNY HAZMAT 1 to extinguish several difficult fires in New York City. PYROCOOL, which is mixed with water at 0.4%, drains rapidly and is extremely absorptive, characteristics that would be essential in extinguishing such deep-seated fires. On the morning of September 30, two thousand gallons of PYROCOOL FEF was delivered to the Liberty Sector Command Post at Liberty and West Streets, adjacent to the West side of what was the North Tower. Staging operations were coordinated by WTC Incident Command and FDNY Research and Development (R&D) that would apply PYROCOOL to two areas of immediate concern - the debris field on the West side of the North Tower and the backside of the debris field of the Federal Building (No. Seven). For the Building Seven operation, a 75-foot ladder tower (Truck Company 133-Brooklyn) was utilized, together with a 500 GPM Akron eductor. Foam was applied, at approximately 500 GPM, for two hours to the middle section of Building Seven, after which a portable infrared camera revealed that the area had been fully extinguished. In fact, no hot spots were found in the area where PYROCOOL had been applied. The North Tower fire operation proved to be logistically more complex, in as much as it had to be conducted so as not to hinder ongoing rescue efforts. An Akron Appolo 500 GPM multiversal was placed 150 feet up onto the debris field with the water stream directed into a void area nearby. Immediately, an enormous column of vapor began pouring from numerous areas throughout the debris field. This was a clear indication that PYROCOOL was draining deep into the debris pile and was reaching the seat of the fire. Lt. Mike Stein and Lt. Larry Monachelli of FDNY R&D coordinated the foam application with assistance from Mike Hagar, Chief of Fire Operations for Pyrocool Technologies, Inc. "It was obvious when we applied the PYROCOOL, that we achieved a rapid reduction in the temperature of the exposed steel, observed Lt. Stein. The application of PYROCOOL continued throughout the week at various locations, including the front section of the Federal Building and a lengthy attack on the debris pile at the South Tower which lasted over twenty-four hours. At the conclusion of the operation Deputy Chief Charles R. Blaich, Incident Command Chief of Logistics, noted, after viewing the latest thermal images, "where the PYROCOOL was applied the fires went out." The success of the PYROCOOL fire operation was due, in large measure, to the professionalism of FDNY WTC Incident Command and to FDNY personnel on site, who directed the operations with dignity and efficiency under the most demanding circumstances. Photographs from Ground Zero Robert E. Tinsley, Jr. *********** Because they had to dig their way through a mountain of rubble and until near the end all they used was water. I didn't say it wasn't a thermite TYPE reaction. In fact that's exactly what Dr Greening says it was. But the materials that made that reaction go didn't need to come from bombs because they were already present in large quantities in the rubble. You really should read Dr Greening's papers.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
What do you mean by "fuel"? It is the thermite which burns. When it is gone, the reaction is over. So again, if thermite bombs brought down the WTC towers, what kept the molten steel in a molten state for more than 6 weeks?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Greening was only trying to explain why the towers collapsed. WTC 7 did not collapse for the same reason as the WTC towers. WTC 7 collapsed because debris from the collapsing towers damaged the building and started fires that burned without fire suppression for about 7 hours. But Jones didn't put it to the test. In the first two experiments all he did was drip molten aluminum onto a steel beam and concrete block. Here was Greening's response to Jones regarding those two tests: ************** From his http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf paper: "In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduced conditions in the WTC fires and would thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area ... snip ... 67 m^^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. **************** In the third test Jones claims to have crushed materials and dripped molten aluminum on them. But how finely did he crush them. He doesn't say. And he doesn't show you a photo of this test. And did he preheat the materials? He doesn't say. And I rather doubt it. In test four, Jones claims he dripped molten aluminum on a watery slurry of gypsum, concrete and plastic. Again, there are no details regarding how finely the material was crushed. There are not details to indicate how much water was actually used. And again there are no pictures of this test setup. Slurry can mean almost anything. Jones is not acting very "scientific". The reality is that he probably didn't recreate the environment well enough to do a valid test. Because he doesn't really understand what Dr Greening is talking about (after all, he's a sub-atomic particle physicist, not a chemist with metallurgical experience). And because he is a biased researcher hoping to create a test with a specific outcome. That's been his pattern all along since he first began concocting these tests. First of all, if you look at the video I provided earlier http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11 you will see that Jones is incorrect in claiming that the material that fell from the towers was yellow or yellow white. It had more of an orange tint to it. And indeed, in other articles he has stated "In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, the falling liquid appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery.") Furthermore, numerous times in that video I provided one can see that the stream is in fact SILVER colored. This occurs from 12 seconds in the video to 33 seconds in the video. It is especially clear at about 32 seconds. You'll also see it from 57 seconds to a 67 seconds. And from 74 to 75 seconds, material can be seen pouring from the corner of the tower and that material is very clearly silver, not orange. And you know something else that Jones claims? In http://www.reopen911.org/BYU.htm he claims "We also recall that this molten metal, after falling approximately 150 meters (or yards) still retained a reddish orange color (see the last photograph, above). This is not the behavior of falling, molten aluminum." Again, that video I posted above proves he's a LIAR. That silver color shows up well within 150 meters of where it started falling. But at least he got the color correct. And why is the color difference between reddish orange and yellow-white important? Maybe this will give you a clue (and it probably is something Jones learned long after he'd made his initial claims that the color was orange. ******** http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/04/steven-jones-to-appear-on-view.html Thomas Eagar wrote: "Having said that, I think that the best way to refute the molten steel hypothesis is to inform people that molten metal is not the equal of molten steel. I have little doubt that some aluminum from the aircraft melted (about 1100 F for the alloys used and well within the capacity of the fires). As I noted in my article, some had suggested a thermite reaction and I indicated that the brilliant white light from burning Aluminum (about 4000 F) would have been unmistakable, but was not observed. The photos which I have seen by the conspiracy theorists which shows glowing metal, shows a red glow or a red orange glow. This is NOT molten steel. Anyone who has ever seen molten steel even in a small weld puddle knows that it it yellow white in color. As temperature increases we go from red (800-900 F) like a kitchen electric range heater (will not melt aluminum pots) to red orange (1100-1200 F- molten aluminum) to orange (1500-1800) to yellow (2000-2300) to yellow white (2500-2800- molten steel) to white (3000 F and above with increasing light intensity, like a tungsten incandescent light bulb.) If you put the temperatures into common sense colors that people know, then they can go back to Steven Jones' photos and anyone can conclude for themselves that the red or red orange glows that they say are molten steel is really just proof that they have never worked around molten metal. Welders, casters plumbers and many other professionals know the colors of molten metals and Prof Jones simply is an uninformed academic, who enjoys the attention that all of you are giving him. I do not care to bask in such "glory"." ***************** Jones is a LIAR whose story is changing over time. Furthermore, as Woods and Reynolds pointed out, the color is determined by the temperature, not the material. Just ignoring the data provided by Woods and Reynolds to support their assertion (which is what you did) is not a convincing response to it. And now I wonder if you will just ignore these additional examples of Jones' dishonesty. In his "Why Indeed Did the WTC Building Collapse?" paper he states "Moreover, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html ." He is lying. Go to that source and you won't find one eyewitness claiming there were "pools" of molten metal. Not one. Here is another example that I found here: http://debunking911.com/jones.htm . This is a really good one so pay attention. Jones uses the following graphic in his presentations: He wants folks to think that is a hunk of solidified molten metal from one of those bogus "pools". But here's another photo of the same debris ... along with the caption that originally accompanied it: Jone is LIAR. That's not the slag from molten steel. And here's a closeup of the paper in that debris showing the paper with legible type: Jones LIED in claiming that object was slag from a molten pool of steel. And you are a fool if you take anything he claims at face value. And as http://debunking911.com/jones.htm concluded: "This is also an indictment against the other 77 scholars who continue to follow a leader who has shown such a lack of respect for truth. They also seem to have little use for proper research. They should have uncovered Jones' blatant errors in his work. I can excuse the average internet blogger but not people who make it a point to parade the word "scholar" around as if they know more than the rest. That's just shameful in my view."
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Flow where? Perhaps structural elements had to deform (like floors sagging) before pools of aluminum could escape the confines of the structure. And by the way, I never claimed the aluminum was as 1500C.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
someone wants to fight you. I say go for it!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The presence of sulphur at the WTC site is no mystery. Again, we need only listen to a REAL chemist rather than a sub-atomic particle physicist to see why. http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf Lame. We all know why you are defending Jones and the thermite bomb theory. When it comes to why the WTC structures collapsed and what did the damage at the Pentagon, it is not just "the government story". The fact is that almost without exception, structural engineers, material experts, demolition experts, experts in fire, seismologists and macro-world physicists around the world do not dispute the scenario laid out by NIST. That isn't to say there aren't good questions about other aspects of "the government story" regarding 9/11 but you will never get answers to those good questions if you persist in promoting the theories of KOOKS regarding the collapse of the WTC structures and the damage at the Pentagon. And how do you know that PYROCOOL FEF won't do that? And second, the reactions taking place in the structure and rubble, according to Dr Greening, were thermite-LIKE. So how do you know they would be as difficult to extinguish? Third, we don't know for a fact that the fires were due to thermite. It's only a theory. It's a well know fact that underground fires can get very hot and are very hard to put out. The bottom line is that you don't have a single expert in fire in your camp. NOT ONE. Wonder why ... ROTFLOL! Trying to muddy the waters even further?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Yes, it would appear you are trying to muddy the water. You will only discredit efforts to find the answers to the legitimate questions surrounding 9/11. What a shame.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
So tell us, Nolu, since you don't believe in Greening's thermite theory and the nuke theory is obvious nonsense, how do you explain molten steel (assuming that is what it was) 100 days after the collapse of the towers? If it wasn't just ordinary physics and fires that did it, what did? Because it certainly wasn't the thermite bombs which Jones insists brought down the WTC towers. Why are you ignoring this critical question? Because I ignored your USS Liberty red herring? ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Let me see if I am reading all of this straight: 1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work. 2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work. 3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion, we make up the notion that thermite was accidentally produced by the INTRODUCTION OF THE AIRLINERS INTO THE TOWERS. The aluminum fuselages are now replacing the jet fuel as the missing ingredient to cause all of this to happen. The aluminum mixed with all the elements comprising the towers and: a. Produced a kind of accidental/homemade thermite. b. Produced enough of that accidental/homemade thermite to bring down BOTH towers. c. Introduction of the oft-used word "coincidence" is all that is missing for this fantastic challenge to laws of probability (BOTH towers got enough of the "magic" thermite?) to work. I don't know why we haven't read it yet. First, any SUGGESTION of thermite is a "kook" suggestion. Then, after Greening, or someone, discovers that there is something missing in order to preserve the official version, THERMITE, as long as it is an "accident," along with coincidence (BOTH towers and BOTH airliners had to produce enough of the "thermite," despite the South Tower losing a large percentage of the jet fuel) to collapse as they did. This surrender to the need for SOMETHING more to be added to the official version, especially thermite, in order to make the official version work, after the suggestion of thermite caused the defenders of the varied official versions over the years to "get the vapors." Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version, as long as it is an "accident," or by-product of the original incident, the planes flying into the buildings. It is another hypothesis, but hypotheses are always enough if they buttress the official version. OTHER hypotheses are automatically false if they produce a contradictory conclusion.
But not from zones where the calculations show the temperatures were the highest. None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C. And note this. The samples they tested indicated peak temperatures that agreed with the temperatures calculated by their fire model in those locations of the towers. The tests actually validated the computer model results. In other locations, those same fire models indicated peak temperatures of more than 1800 F. What Mark can't fathom is that computer modeling is the STATE OF THE ART in determining peak temperatures in fires. And those codes have been validated against numerous actual cases during development.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Who is full of shit? You or NIST? One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire? The shit is so deep at the moment, that I need an extension ladder to see over the top of it.
So, pour that melted alumimum over steel and you have a heat-sink, which will cool the aluminum very rapidly. There will be no 2,700 plus degrees, necessary to collapse the buildings at essentially free-fall rates.
#94. To: BeAChooser (#79)
Tell us what the source of thermite that kept the reaction going for SIX WEEKS or longer was? I surely wasn't leftover bombs.
10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions.
#95. To: nolu_chan (#93)
#96. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So tell us, BeAChihuahua, how do you extinguish a thermite reaction in a mountain of steel?
More than three months later, fires extinguished at WTC
I suppose water is a chemical agent. However, after three months, pockets might have been still burning.
#97. To: SKYDRIFTER (#95)
The implication is that molten steel from a cutting torch would induce a "thermite reaction." (Rubbish!)
#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones (#79)
But it does get consumed. So unless you are postulating (like Red Jones) a form of thermite that burns for a long time (weeks), you have a problem.
12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement.
#99. To: BeAChooser (#79)
#100. To: nolu_chan (#99)
#101. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#84)
"But I am able to explain how you extinguish a thermite reaction. You use chemical agents ... just like they eventually did at the WTC site."
WHAT did they use... and WHY did it take so long.
President & CEO
PYROCOOL TECHNOLOGIES
MONROE, VIRGINIA U.S.A.
(434) 929-3352 The fire burned as long as it burned. Please explain how the fire continued to burn as long as it did.
If it was NOT a thermite reaction, WHY do you allege they used chemical agents to extinguish a thermite reaction?
#102. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#85)
The thermite reaction will continue as long as it has fuel.
#103. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#86)
When challenged by Dr. Jones about Tower #7, he retreats:
“Ah yes, the WTC 7 collapse! What can I say…… Since no aircraft hit WTC 7, I have no provable proposal for what brought that building down.”
Dr. Greening made a proposal:
“I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two thing [sic] happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignite violent, explosive reactions.”
Gee, look what happened when Dr. Jones put it to the test:
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. 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.
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport.
(Photo by Lane Johnson)" 
#104. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#92)
Aluminum melts at a much lower temperature than 1500°C. If it melted high up in a WTC fire, it would not hang around to reach 1500°C, it would flow away.
#105. To: BeAChooser (#103)
#106. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#93)
the presence of sulphur
Regardless of how many times BAC attributes some theory to me, I have NOT stated why the towers collapsed. I HAVE stated I do not know why the towers collapsed.
I do not find the government story compelling.
Magic BAC chemical agents may fertilize a magic BAC beanstalk, but I doubt they will extinguish a thermite reaction.
A Finnish source provides an interesting speculation about the use of a small pure hydrogen bomb in addition to cutting charges.
#107. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#94)
Here is your answer. An Israeli fusion device would do it!
#108. To: nolu_chan, ALL (#98)
#109. To: nolu_chan (#98)
#110. To: Kamala, ALL (#100)
NIST had a total of 236 samples of steel. 136 were distinct samples, many from the fire zones.
No steel sample saw temps higher than around 487F.
Here is the bottom line with the NIST, tweeked computer models and trumped up workstation model burn tests, are nothing more than voodoo witchcraft.
#111. To: BeAChooser (#110)
None of the samples they tested saw temperatures higher than that because they only tested samples that still had paint on them. This was necessary because the only robust test they found involved the condition of paint. And that test procedure could not be used on steel that saw temperatures of more than about 250 C.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#112. To: BeAChooser (#110)
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#113. To: roughrider, nolu_chan, ALL (#109)
No, I didn't say that. I don't see any experts in fire, anywhere in the world, stressing about the high temperatures found in the WTC rubble. Perhaps they think that ordinary fire under those conditions could actually be very hot and hard to put out. Also, I don't see ANY of them suggesting that steel couldn't melt under those conditions. I'm all ears, if you know of any that do dispute that. I'm all ears if you can name any that have actually joined this so-called *truth* movement. But that doesn't rule out the possibility that a thermite like reaction occurred in the rubble or perhaps even in the towers. Dr Greening makes some very good points (and he's not the only chemist who has remarked about that possibility). And Ex-Professor Jones is a demonstrable, serial LIAR. He has NO background in any of this. He's a sub-atomic particle physicist and he should have remained one. No. It's Occam's Razor. IF there were a thermite reaction in the rubble (and we don't really know if there was), and IF the materials that produce thermite are readily available in the rubble (making Jones' claim that they prove the existance of bombs foolish), then the most likely explanation is Dr Greening's, rather than the silly assertion that thermite bombs were placed everywhere throughout the towers. Occam's Razor is not on the side that has to claim no one noticed the placement of all these charges and no one (among the hundreds or thousands who must know the truth) has yet blown the whistle. And I'm still waiting to hear their theory of what kept steel molten in the rubble for 6 weeks because it certainly wasn't thermite bombs that went off on 9/11. But it could be Dr Greening's theory or those ordinary fire physics that none of the fire experts seem to have challenged. Oh no. Are you going to start counting angels on the heads of pins again? Not at all. The NIST scenario does not need thermite to collapse the towers. The only issue is where the molten steel (if that's what it was) in the rubble came from. Was it produced during the collapse, afterwords or both? I don't think it was even necessary for Dr Greening to try and explain the collapse of the towers with his theory. NIST's explanation is fine. The material seen flowing out of ONE of the towers many minutes before it collapsed (say, roughrider ... did they set off those thermite bombs minutes before the collapse and it still took minutes for the towers to collapse?) may or may not be steel. A lot of REAL experts seem to think the material was aluminum. And that has a certain logic since the remains of the airplane's fuselage came to rest in the corner of the tower where the stream of molten material was seen and it was very hot in that corner (according to the fire code models that NIST developed). As to the molten materials in the rubble, they may or may not have been steel. I'm willing to believe some of it was. But so what? We know you can melt steel with wood under certain conditions. NONE of the experts in fire have come forward to say it was impossible that ordinary fires in the rubble (and there were plenty of combustibles and sources of air in the rubble) did that. But if they didn't, then there is still the possibility that a thermite-like reaction took place along the lines postulated by Dr Greening and others. So there is no inconsistency in this view.
1. We now need some kind of "thermite" reaction in order to make the official version of the failures of the towers to work.
2. Any thermite reaction in the towers HAS to be the product of some kind of "accident" in order for the official version to work.
3. Arguing backword from the official version's conclusion,
Now, thermite is the SAVIOR of the official version
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#114. To: BeAChooser (#113)
There's that shill term again. Why do fairy tale believers always use that term?
No. It's Occam's Razor.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#115. To: Critter, ALL (#111)
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/highlight_WTC2004.htm "Task 5 — Analyze Steel to Estimate Temperature, Just as the nature of the deformation and failure of the recovered steel reveals information about the impact and collapse, the steel can also contain evidence of its exposure to the elevated temperatures in the fire. The situation is made more complex because much of the steel was also exposed to extended fires in the rubble before recovery. Several different methods, both conventional and novel, were examined for estimating high-temperature excursions seen by the steel. Only one method proved to be robust and easy to implement: paint on steels that reached temperatures over 250 °C cracked from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel." And you might also want to take a look at this: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
Who is full of shit? You or NIST?
One of you wants us to believe that without paint they would not be able to tell how the steel performed during the fire?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#116. To: All, Itisa1mosttoolate (#112)
You will never get answers to legitimate questions about what really happened to Flight 93 if you discredit yourselves with silly assertions about bombs in the WTC and no Flight 77 at the Pentagon.
Nothing there, except for a hole in the ground!
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#117. To: roughrider (#109)
Thermite placed in exactly the right positions to bring down the towers symmetrically and at a near free-fall rate.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#118. To: BeAChooser (#115)
So it is NIST that is full fo shit. OK thanks.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#119. To: BeAChooser (#116)
How about expecting aircraft parts at an aircraft crash? Is that to much to ask?
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
#120. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#121. To: Minerva (#120)
yes, he is a horny, sullen, creepy korean guy with a lot of pent anger and a serious lack of social skills. which is weird, i don't meet many jewish korean guys.
Are you a creepy Korean guy?
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#122. To: Morgana le Fay (#121)
You never met Won Epstien?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#123. To: Critter (#122)
i know one named sung yu rubinstein.
"Aren't you lucky. You get to hear me whine about the 10 posts I'm allowed each day." -- BeAChooser
#124. To: Critter (#111)
I found a forum index with some of the NIST "experts" replies, concerns, emails and such. The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project. The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#125. To: Kamala, critter, ALL (#124)
Go to http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/ Download the FDS Technical Reference User Guide http://www.fire.nist.gov/fds/docs/fds_tech_guide_4.pdf listed on that web page. In the acknowledgments section it states "The Fire Dynamics Simulator has been under development for almost 25 years." In Chapter 2 it states that "Version 1 of FDS was publicly released in February 2000". Chapter 6 is on model validation. It states "FDS was officially released in 2000. However, for two decades various CFD codes using the basic FDS hydrodynamic framework were developed at NIST for different applications and for research. In the mid 1990s, many of these different codes were consolidated into what eventually became FDS. Before FDS, the various models were referred to as LES, NIST-LES, LES3D, IFS (Industrial Fire Simulator), and ALOFT (A Large Outdoor Fire Plume Trajectory)." So Mark is simply wrong about when the software was developed. As to it's accuracy, if you read Chapter 6 you will see there has been a significant and highly successful effort to validate the code both before and since 9/11. They are able to conclude that "for simulations that simply involve mass and heat transport, the model predicts flow velocities and temperatures to an accuracy of 5 % to 20% compared to experimental measurements, depending on the fidelity of the underlying grid." So isn't it ironic that Mark seems to have utter faith in the conclusions of Skilling's "white paper" (which he wrote back in 1964), when they had virtually no tools (and certainly NO computer tools) for evaluating the spread and effects of fire in structures, much less anything else. Deceptive and false again. For example, in the acknowledgments page of the above FDS Technical Reference Guide, it says "Howard Baum and Ronald Rehm laid the theoretical groundwork for the model and devised the basic numerical solvers that are still used in the code today." Well according to his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=baum ), Howard Baum has a BS in Aeronautical Engineering, an MS in Applied Mechanics, and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. He has "research interests in the fluid mechanics of fires, turbulent combustion, convective and radiative heat transfer, smoke transport, and microgravity combustion. He was a Lecturer and then Assistant Professor in the Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University from 1964 to 1971. He then spent four years as a Senior Scientist at Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts before joining NIST. Dr. Baum has published over one hundred forty papers and reports. His analysis of ventilation in containership holds is the technical basis of an international standard for containership ventilation. He is the co-developer (with R. Rehm) of what are now known as the low Mach number combustion equations, the starting point for most theoretical and computational work in that field. He has been involved in the development of large eddy simulation models for both building and outdoor fires at NIST since its inception. He also developed the first multiple fire model for urban environments that actually distinguishes individual fires. Dr. Baum has served on National Research Council Panels convened by the Naval Studies Board in 1986 and 1991 to consider Office of Naval Research Opportunities in Solid and Fluid Mechanics, and a Panel in 1987 to consider the Status of Nuclear Winter Research. He was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 1991 Japan-U.S. Heat Transfer Joint Seminar, and an invited participant in the 1994 U.S. Japan Seminar "Modeling in Combustion Science" sponsored by the National Science foundation and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He was an invited lecturer at the SIAM Sixth International Conference on Numerical Combustion in 1996, at the 50th anniversary symposium of the National Research Insitute of Fire and Disaster in Japan in 1998, and at the Emmons Memorial Symposium in San Antonio in 2000. He was also a member of the U.S. Panel of the UJNR Panel on Fire Research and Safety at the 13th meeting in 1996, the 14th meeting in 1998, and the 15th meeting in 2000. He was a Senior Visitor at the University of Minnesota Insitute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) in 1999 and organizer of the IMA Fire Modeling Workshop. He is currently a member of the Editorial Board of the journals Combustion and Flame and Combustion Theory and Modeling. Dr. Baum has been the recipient of many honors and awards. They include the U.S. Department of Commerce Silver Medal Award in 1981 and a Gold Medal Award in 1985. He was named Russell Severance Springer Visiting Professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1985. He was awarded a Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship in 1994 for a visit to the University of Tokyo Insitute of Industrial Science. He received the Medal of Excellence from the International Association for Fire Safety Science in 1991 and 1999. He was awarded the 1999 Arthur B. Guise Medal of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. He was elected a Fellow and Chartered Physicist of the Insitute of Physics in 1999. Dr. Baum was elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 2000. His biography is listed in American Men and Women of Science, and Who's Who in America." He really is an expert on fire ... contrary to what Mark would have you believe. He co-developer, Ronald Rehm, has a profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=rehm ) that indicates he has a BS in Engineering Sciences and a PhD in Applied Mathematics. His resume would suggest he's quite good at computational mathematics (he's published over 80 papers, for one thing). That is expertise one actually needs to develop good simulation tools. Contrary to what Mark would have you believe. And that's just for starters. Kevin McGrattan, another mathematician, is mentioned as adding features needed to make the model accessible to practicing fire protection engineers, and he remains the custodian of the FDS source code. It is noted in his profile (http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/profiles.asp?lastname=mcgrattan ) that he developed LES (Large Eddy Simulation) models of smoke movement in enclosures of various geometries and in the atmosphere, as well fire models for other situations. That certainly seems applicable experience. Glenn Forney is identified as having developed the visualization tool Smokeview that not only made the public release possible, but it also serves as the principal diagnostic tool for the continuing development of FDS. Yes, he's another mathematician. But so what? Maybe that qualifies him to actually be a good computer programmer? The acknowledgments says Kuldeep Prasad added the multipleblock feature of the model, paving the way for parallel processing. According to his profile Dr Prasad has a BT in Aeronautical Engineering and a PhD in Aerospace Engineering. His profile says his doctoral thesis was done under the direction of Profs. Edward Price, Warren Strahle and Ben Zinn, was entitled “Numerical Simulation of Chemically Reacting Fluid Flows Through Two-Dimensional Burners”. Dr. Prasad did post-doctoral research at Yale University with Prof. Mitch Smooke, where he designed a comprehensive multi-layered combustion model for studying the burning rates of solid rocket propellants." "At NRL, he developed models for studying liquid methanol pool fires and performed numerical simulations to optimize water-mist injection characteristics for maximum flame suppression. He also developed a domain decomposition technique based on the multiblock Chimera approach to solve the unsteady compressible Navier Stokes equations inside a large fire compartment. Computations for a 1310 kW fire in a multi-compartment geometry that replicates the ex-USS Shadwell were performed." He has over ten publications in refereed journals. And that's before he even got to NIST. "His research interests include numerical simulation of chemically reacting fluid flows with detailed finite rate kinetics, mathematical and numerical modeling of various physical and chemical processes and large scale computing using DNS or LES models. His areas of expertise include scalable computing on massively parallel architectures, distributed computing, OpenMP and SPMD programming as well as visualization and animation techniques." I don't know about you, Mark, but that sounds like an expert who is qualified to develop good fire codes. William (Ruddy) Mell is another person mentioned in just the first paragraph of the acknowledgments page. It says he has developed unique applications of the model in areas of microgravity combustion and wildland fire spread. He doesn't have a profile at NIST but it turns out he was a research assistant professor in the Combustion Research Group at the University of Utah. And whether his experience before joining NIST was directly associated with building fires, at least he had experience in fires ... rather than sub-atomic particles or (in the case of Shillings) just building design. And the last name mentioned in that first paragraph is Charles Bouldin who "devised the basic framework of the parallel version of the code. " Bouldin has BS, MS and PhD in Physics. "Solid state physics, with a specialization in converting computational codes to run on parallel processing systems." This too is a expertise that would be needed to build a efficient fire modeling code. And unlike your ex-professor Jones, he's at least working in the arena of his specialty. By the way, he is the author of over 75 technical publications. And that's just the names mentioned in the first paragraph of the acknowledgments section. There are dozens of other names and I'm willing to bet that Mark has mischaracterized their expertise just as badly as he did this first group. Indeed, a careful reading shows this section of the document is loaded with names of individuals who have experience directly applicable to modeling building fires. Mark is just plain wrong. Again.
The FDS software was so full of bugs it was a joke. None of this computer software was tested or existed before the WTC research project.
The big "experts" running the fire simulations had backgrounds in math, software, and forestry. Other background of NIST "experts" were navy, dod, pentagon, oil and gas, marine coastal flooding.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#126. To: BeAChooser (#113)
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated. Simply saying "coincidence" won't cut it.
#127. To: roughrider, ALL (#126)
Strawman. You apparently didn't actually read my last post to you. I'm not advocating Greening's theory about what brought them down. I don't need to because the NIST explanation is more than adequate to explain what was observed before and during the collapse. Which is why not one structural engineer, demolition expert or macro-world physicist anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise. You see, roughrider, they understand the physics involved ... whereas a sub-atomic particle physicist, a theologian, a philosopher, an expert in dental materials, an economist, a janitor, a lawyer, and all the rest of the names leading the *truth* movement do not. I'm only suggesting Greening's theory MIGHT be an explanation for why molten "something" was observed in rubble as much as 6 weeks after the collapse. Equally possible is that an ordinary subterranean fire can explain it (as NOT ONE expert in fire or steel anywhere in the world has gone public to suggest otherwise). Still another possibility is that the steel was affected by materials (like sulfer) in the environment either long before the planes hit the buildings or after the collapse while it sat in that hellish mix we call rubble. Form a eutectic mixture in that steel and you lower the melting point which again would allow ordinary fires to produce molten material long after the towers had collapsed. And by the way, the thermite bomb theory does NOT explain that last fact. Like you said, solutions have to answer ALL of the questions and the CT community has been studiously avoiding the question about what source of heat kept the steel molten (assuming it was steel) for more than six weeks after the collapse.
You will have trouble making Occam's Razor fit your hypothesis. Occam's Razor demands simple solutions, BUT they have to answer ALL of the questions. How could an accidental thermite reaction occur contemporaneouly in both towers in order to bring them down, causing explosions, as Greening stated.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#128. To: BeAChooser (#113)
The whole purpose of Occam's Razor is to supply the simplest solution that answers ALL of the questions. Following is a reproduction of the outstanding questions concerning what happened in and around the WTC as a result of the attacks on 9/11/01. ALL of the questions have to be answered under Occam's Razor. Greening only tries to answer (perhaps) two of them: What caused the towers to collapse AND/OR what caused the continuing hot fires and molten metal for a long period of time after the towers collapsed. By employing his "back of the envelope" hypothesis, he explains both events with the introduction--a priori--of "Accidental Thermite," a substance at which you used to scoff at the notion of its presence on 9/11. Interestingly, he suggests that his "Accidental Thermite" might explain the explosions ("Explosive reactions" was HIS term) that numerous firefighters, police, and victim/witnesses testified they heard. So, now there WERE explosions, provided we can posit them within the confines of Greening's hypothesis, as it buttresses the official version--The collapses, continuing heat, and explosions were the result of "Accidental Thermite," the SWAMP GAS and MAGIC BULLET needed to explain all of these events within the confines of the official hypothesis. Occam's Razor doesn't work that way. The hypothesis leaves the following events unaddressed as originally posted by nolu_chan: 1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000- fold in the concrete floors. 2. Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heath so rapidly that the steel goes above it's boiling temperature. 3. 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts. 4. 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges. 5. Molten ponds of steel at the bottom of elevator shafts (WTC1, WTC2, WTC7). Massive heath loads have been present at the lower parts of these high-rise buildings. As one of the witnesses after seeing the flow of metals declared: "no one will be found alive". 6. The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized. 7. Sharp spikes in seismograph readings (Richter 2.1 and 2.3) occurred at the beginning of collapse for both towers. Short duration and high power indicate an explosive event. 8. A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally. 9. Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. (In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents). See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906 10. Fires took 100 days to extinguish despite continuous spraying of water. Thermate would burn out totally and then cool down much faster, just in a few days. This long cooling time means the total heath load being absorbed into the steels of the WTC was massive, far in excess anything found in collapses or typical controlled demolitions. 11. Brown shades of color in the air due nuclear radiation forming NO2, NO3 and nitric acid. TV and documentary footage changed the color balance to blue to disguise this fact indicating complicity in the coverup. 12. Elevated Tritium values measured in the WTC area but not elsewhere in New York. Official studies stated that 8 EXIT signs from two commercial Boeing jets were responsible. The tritium in those EXIT signs is insufficient to explain the measurements (very little tritium is available for measuring after evaporation into air as hydrogen and as tritiated water vapour. This can provide conclusive proof of fusion devices and therefore US/Israeli military involvement. 13. Pyroclastic flow observed in the concrete-based clouds. Only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. The explosion squibs cool down just a few milliseconds after the explosion or after having reached some 10 meters in the air. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious heath in those clouds not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The pyroclastic clouds were cooling down at the WTC but this process took some 30 seconds. See http://video.google.com/videoplay? docid=1381525012075538113 14. Huge expanding dust clouds 5 times the volume of the building indicating extreme levels of heat generated far in excess of traditional demolition explosives. 15. Rubble height was some 10% of the original instead of 33% expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height. 16. No survivors found, except some firefighters in one corner pocket in the rubble who looked up to see blue sky above them instead of being crushed by collapsing debris. Upward fusion flashlight-like beam of destruction missed this pocket but removed debris above those lucky firemen. 17. 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic) 18. Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels. 19. Decontamination procedure used at Ground Zero (hi-pressure water spraying) for all steel removed from site. Water spraying contains fusion radioactivity. 20. No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory. 21. 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water. 22. Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site. 23. Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.de bitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm 24. EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC. All of these events require some kind of verifiable explanation. EMP, Tritium, etc., etc. Now, I don't know if there was a backpack hydrogen/fusion device anywhere near those towers, but, if you are going to apply Occam's Razor, I hate to tell you this--Occam's Razor fits this explanation like a glove. It answers every outstanding question and is completely simple. One item, easily concealable and capable of being covertly introduced into one or both towers, was responsible for ALL of it. If Al Qaeda gained access to stolen Soviet backbacks, which is not an unreasonable position given how nukes seemed to be unaccounted for there, you don't even need to blame our government for anything more than concealing the instrumentality of the attack.
#129. To: roughrider (#128)
Excellent. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers. They think that Occam's Razor stands for whatever the official version of something is. Occam's Razor says explosions of intense heat blasted the WTC and brought WTC1 and WTC2 down. Gravity could never explode the buildings like that.
#130. To: Paul Revere, roughrider (#129) (Edited)
i agree. it's a cop out theory. whenever someone posts that i know immediately they are not openminded, usually arrogant, and certainly not interested in learning the truth.
Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#131. To: christine (#130)
Yes, it was logic, not fantasy or desire, that convinced me 9-11 was an operation that had to involve the top levels of government for months. I wish it were not true, and tried to find a way to believe the official story, but there is simply too much out there that makes clear the towers were demolished by our government.
#132. To: Paul Revere, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#129)
There is an occasional use for this tool, but it requires prudent judgment. The Doyle/Holmes philosophy of eliminating the impossible is one of the most dynamic reasoning tools available. Occam's Razor is useful in cleaning up any doubts, afterward. But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used. Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Occam's Razor is the most misunderstood and misused term among non-thinkers.
#133. To: SKYDRIFTER (#132)
Short of God-given blind ass luck, there is no substitute for education, intelligence and insight. Well said. In practice, Occum's Razor is used to foreclose discussion, to ridicule a theory as not the obvious one. Every criminal framing or false flag operation relies upon Occam's Razor to sate the masses and convince them UP is DOWN. It's like misdirection and magic. Logic is deceived because it sees only what it expects to see.
But, I totally agree that Occam's Razor is more typically little understood and badly used.
.
.
.
Comments (134 - 157) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest