|
Post by sts60 on Jun 29, 2006 16:24:25 GMT -4
Wasn't Prof. "cold fusion" Jones the same hyper-observant genius who identified as once-melted steel what was obviously a chunk of concrete with rebar sticking out of it?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jul 1, 2006 23:01:29 GMT -4
Smoke from a building on fire is suspicious? please provide a link to the videoAlready posted this on another thread, but for your convenience: video.The white smoke started rising from the ground, far below the fires above, just before the collapse started. The aluminium could have been mixed with other materials which would change its colorBit of a stretch. Molten metals don't mix well with other materials except other liquid metals. No other metal would have been liquid at those temperatures. It's unlikely the fires were even hot enough to liquefy aluminum at that point (melting point = 1220 °F). Fires in the debris pile burned hotenough to heat steel to this tempSteel can't stay that hot unless it's in an actual furnace. The only way to explain those kind of temperatures over that time period would be if it was molten before the collapse. If you mean like on the cut beam above that was from cutting torches. If you are refering to something else provide a citationIt's not surprising that diagonal cuts would be used to cut standing beams, for the same reason they would be cut that way from thermate charges. That doesn't prove that all the diagonal cuts were done by welding torches. And it certainly doesn't explain Jones finding thermate residue in the molten metal. evidence please, the steel cut in Jones demos didn't have anywhere near the dimentions of the WTC columnsThis video shows how fast thermite can cut through an engine block. Thermate would be even faster. Note how similar the yellow metal appears to what was videoed coming off the WTC 1 just before the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 2, 2006 0:15:46 GMT -4
Maybe you see something I'm not seeing. But the video is really hard to read from zooming in on decompression errors. Are you talking the about little white wisps that appear above the water? That's not from the ground or from the building. Thats some of the decompression error, pixels being interpolated up from the band of lighter pixels into the band of darker pixels.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 2, 2006 0:45:50 GMT -4
Cool! I started to watch this one earlier and had to come back to it after the kids were in bed. Not sure how this proves the point, though. First of all, they don't show it "cutting" thru and engine block. They show a bunch of big yellow pixels and then show a hole in the hood, but not the block. Proves nothing, but it does show how messy thermite is. Look again at the cut edge of the supposed thermite-chopped beam. Look again at how thermite melts and splatters and runs all over the place. It's a gravity-driven event. fsae.berkeley.edu/pix/chassis%20work%209-2005/Cutting%20Torch%202.jpgHere's and example of some torch cutting. Pretty accurate. The "blade" of the cut is a blast of pure oxygen controlled by a paddle handle on top of the torch. It's about a quarter of an inch wide. First you hit the flame against the steel in one spot, like welding. When you have enough puddle of melted metal you squeeze the paddle handle down and oxygen blasts into the puddle. Three things happen: Molten metal splatters around, iron is consumed by the oxygen, and the heat of the iron/oxy reaction gets the surrounding metal hot more quickly. Once you have a hole "drilled" through plate steel or an edge started on bar stock or a corner notched into rail-road track the rest of the cut goes fairly quickly. How quickly is dependent on how thick the metal is. There are a couple of sizes of torches available, but for the most part a torch is a torch. Let's look again at the picture you claim is of a thermite cut beam.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 2, 2006 1:23:13 GMT -4
Okay, I've never tried this before, I'll do it more neatly next time. a) This is the hole where the cut started. Yeah, it's a big hole. That's how big it had to be to drill through the plate and get the cut started. A tiny little hobbyist torch would need an even bigger hole to get started and would poop-out on steel this thick. A gigantic industrial torch on a robot arm would put out enough flame to start the cut in metal this thick with a smaller hole. I'm guessing this is an ordinary torch a guy in a bucket truck would use. b) Notice how little slag is below the hole. Iron is burned by a cutting torch, literally, and blasted away into little glowing droplets. The slag is what melts around the edge and runs down. Most of the iron of the cut is removed altogether as rust and droplets. c) Notice the striations on this edge. I have no reference for size, here, but I'm guessing the grooves are about the size of a finger. This is a tool-mark, in this case from a blast of pure oxygen burning away the kerf. They also seem to point to one spot, as if this side was cut without moving the bucket. Looks like his arm was getting tired toward the bottom of the cut, he started to wander more. d) Here we can see a big drip of slag running down into the beam. If it's thermite cut, wouldn't we have a big mess of metal running down all over the place? Or did they somehow direct the flow against the draw of gravity? With a blast of pure oxy from a tank and hose perhaps? e) And odd step in the cut here. Perhaps there was a crane attached to the stub and they pulled it over, and this is a torn edge. I'm guessing, but if the 9-11 conspiracy theorists can guess and arm wave then I'm going to guess this is a torn edge. f) Here we have a bunch of slag. Proof of a gravity driven event? Yes. First you cut the beam. Then you knock it over. Then you cut though the bent-over folded part. It's thick, and the worker can swing the bucket more-or-less over the cut and point the flame down. There. Proof that this photo is of the clean-up. Your sources say this is proof of thermite, I say it proves your sources eat scooby snacks. If you know what I mean. Edit of spelling.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jul 2, 2006 15:44:41 GMT -4
That's not from the ground or from the building. Thats some of the decompression error, pixels being interpolated up from the band of lighter pixels into the band of darker pixels. It''s clearly white colored smoke in contrast to the grey background above it. Note how the white color remains as they zoom the camera out.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 2, 2006 20:35:41 GMT -4
That's not from the ground or from the building. Thats some of the decompression error, pixels being interpolated up from the band of lighter pixels into the band of darker pixels. It's clearly white colored smoke in contrast to the grey background above it. Note how the white color remains as they zoom the camera out. No, it isn't clear. Note how the "white color" is the harbor the camera was filming across, not the ground at all. In fact, there's a slim little piece of WTC visible to the ground level between buildings. That;'s where I would expect to see something, if there was anything to see, but there isn't. Why would thermite (or pixy dust) burning in a sub basement inside the building be visible outside at all? That's just goofy. Also, note how you don't bother responding to a comment on the rest of your "evidence," the supposedly thermate cut beam. How Very!
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 3, 2006 13:11:19 GMT -4
Smoke from a building on fire is suspicious? please provide a link to the videoAlready posted this on another thread, but for your convenience: video.The white smoke started rising from the ground, far below the fires above, just before the collapse started. - There were hundreds of videos shot of the towers many shot by professional TV crews so I’m suspicious of “smoking gun” videos which are low resolution which show things not seen in any other videos. Does this “smoke” appear in any other videos? Preferably one that’s higher resoulution - It isn’t even clear that the smoke is coning from the towers. To me it appears to be coming from a location in front of the towers Have you ever been to NYC? I grew up there it is not uncommon to see billows of white smoke (mostly water vapor) pour out of vents in the street. - It can’t be accurately said “The white smoke started rising from the ground…just before the collapse started” because the smoke seems to have been present as soon as the video started, it appears as soon as the camera is zoomed in enough. I imagine this smoke was already rising before the clip starts because the camera was zoomed out and it would not have been visible through the viewfinder and I can think of no other reason for the cameraman to have zoomed to that location rather than the tops of the towers unless he spotted the smoke with his naked eye. - There were lower level fires in the towers although I imagine they had been extinguished by then. There were also reports of cars being ignited by a falling debris and several other buildings in the complex had caught fire - The smoke is a continuous flow not a sudden puff and thus is more consistent with a steam vent or a fire than an explosion. - There were lots of people at or near the base of the towers of the time none AFAIK said anything about white smoke or a massive explosion just before either collapse. - Both towers collapsed top to bottom a scenario INconsistent with CD esp. if you believe the collapses were initiated by detonation of explosives at the bottom. Cite one explosives or demolition expert who backs your interpretation of the collapse or smoke For all the above reasons less sinister explanations than explosiv es are more likely. - Citation please - The other material wouldn’t have to had mixed well with the molten aluminum only well enough to have changed it from silver (essentially colorless) to light yellow Categorically wrong. apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=othertheories&thread=1145902991&page=4 see reply # 59 Categorically wrong again. According to tests carried out by Manchester University high rise fires could reach 1300 C (2372 F) www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm Wrong again steel (like any other material) can maintain any temperature below its flame or boiling point as long as it is exposed to a heat source. According to Jones’ paper steel starts to turn orange at a round 890 F and yellow at 1000 F Those temps could easily have been reached in the debris pile fires. They are nowhere near the melting point of steel There is no basis for such an assumption. It could had been exposed to high temps from the debris for that period. It even could have heated up just before excavation due to increased oxygen flow. Funny because that's not what you were saying a few days ago. Show us an example of thermite cutting 1 inch thich sttuctural steel so cleanly That has already been dealt with on this thread, There is no independent confirmation of Jones’ claims. He said he detected thermite and sulfur. Sulfur and the components for thermite, iron oxide (rust) and aluminum, were in abundance in the rubble pile, he said nothing about about barium nitrate which is 29% of thermate sulfur is only 2 %. How did he verify the provenance of the sample, could someone be hoaxing him? The monument from which the sample was supposedly taken was presumably welded. Thermate and thermite are frequently used for welding. Dealt with above. The sheet of steel and car hood are nowhere near as thick as it he WTC columns (1/4 inch at the top, 4 inches at the bottom and about an inch at the impact zones. They aren’t construction grade steel either Show us an example of thermite or themate cutting inch thick construction grade steel as cleanly as seen in those photos
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 3, 2006 13:18:21 GMT -4
Cool! I started to watch this one earlier and had to come back to it after the kids were in bed. Not sure how this proves the point, though. First of all, they don't show it "cutting" thru and engine block. They show a bunch of big yellow pixels and then show a hole in the hood, but not the block. Proves nothing, but it does show how messy thermite is. Look again at the cut edge of the supposed thermite-chopped beam. Look again at how thermite melts and splatters and runs all over the place. It's a gravity-driven event. fsae.berkeley.edu/pix/chassis%20work%209-2005/Cutting%20Torch%202.jpgHere's and example of some torch cutting. Pretty accurate. The "blade" of the cut is a blast of pure oxygen controlled by a paddle handle on top of the torch. It's about a quarter of an inch wide. First you hit the flame against the steel in one spot, like welding. When you have enough puddle of melted metal you squeeze the paddle handle down and oxygen blasts into the puddle. Three things happen: Molten metal splatters around, iron is consumed by the oxygen, and the heat of the iron/oxy reaction gets the surrounding metal hot more quickly. Once you have a hole "drilled" through plate steel or an edge started on bar stock or a corner notched into rail-road track the rest of the cut goes fairly quickly. How quickly is dependent on how thick the metal is. There are a couple of sizes of torches available, but for the most part a torch is a torch. Let's look again at the picture you claim is of a thermite cut beam. The stirations on the beam are quite consistant with torch cutting. www.esabna.com/EUWeb/OXY_handbook/589oxy21_5.htmFor an example of a torch cutting steel and leaving slag watch this video. Note how clean the cut it compared to the thermite in the other video clip. www.magnumusa.com/download.htm
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 3, 2006 13:21:13 GMT -4
Wasn't Prof. "cold fusion" Jones the same hyper-observant genius who identified as once-melted steel what was obviously a chunk of concrete with rebar sticking out of it? When and where was this?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jul 3, 2006 15:44:23 GMT -4
Hey Len: Thanks for posting the higher resolution version of the 45degree cut picture. That was very helpful. This is the image from the first of your two welding/torch cutting references above. The cut labeled 1 is a textbook perfect cut, the others are "wrong" in some way or other. I read the explanations, and the short story is that the WTC beam looks like a cut with not enough heat, and not enough arm support: in other words, 9:ij, the beam was cut by a random clean-up worker bouncing around in a bucket with a random cutting torch of insufficient size to cut 3" or 4" steel plate "perfectly," but with enough heat to get the job done. If this is the kind of evidence you can be pursuaded by, perhaps you should turn off the TV and stop voting. Really, your "sources" have you by the nose on this one.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 3, 2006 19:59:28 GMT -4
[quote author=jason board=othertheories thread=1151516191 post=1151519978]Why is a Physics professor doing chemical and structural analysis? One of his specialties is Archaeometry - the term given by archaeologists to the application of scientific methods from the physical sciences and engineering to archaeology problems. Radiocarbon dating techniques, remote sensing, and trace element analysis are all classed as archaeometric methods. [/quote] All his work in that area was in a Mormon affliated organisation. His only published paper on the subject appeared in A BYU publication. The research involved radio not chemical analysis an we don't know if Jones did the actual analysis himself he worke with 2 grad students. . You haven't shown that to be true Not so because cutting torches leave slag also Dealt with elsewhere That wa sthe city not federal governent The ASCE and NIST had access to the steel. Most of it wasn't removed for a few months LOL famous last words. Cite me one reference that they cut beams this way in CD
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 3, 2006 21:49:44 GMT -4
All his work in that area was in a Mormon affliated organisation. His only published paper on the subject appeared in A BYU publication.
That's what's got me so steamed about this guy - the idea that people will connect him with "the Mormons" and think he's somehow representative of us. Not even close. Utah is about as pro-Bush as it gets in this country - generally speaking we're the last people who would buy into any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Even more annoying is the notion that if it's done by BYU it must be intellectually suspect, since they're a Mormon school. Religious bigotry, in other words.
BYU itself has distanced itself from this guy on this subject - read the Daily Universe articles I linked to in Reply #5. They're not going to fire him just because of his ludicrous opinions, but they're not about to promote or support those ideas.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 4, 2006 10:59:01 GMT -4
All his work in that area was in a Mormon affliated organisation. His only published paper on the subject appeared in A BYU publication.That's what's got me so steamed about this guy - the idea that people will connect him with "the Mormons" and think he's somehow representative of us. Not even close. Utah is about as pro-Bush as it gets in this country - generally speaking we're the last people who would buy into any 9/11 conspiracy theory. Even more annoying is the notion that if it's done by BYU it must be intellectually suspect, since they're a Mormon school. Religious bigotry, in other words. BYU itself has distanced itself from this guy on this subject - read the Daily Universe articles I linked to in Reply #5. They're not going to fire him just because of his ludicrous opinions, but they're not about to promote or support those ideas. AFAIK neither BYU nor the Church of LDS have distanced themselves from Jones’ archeology work. I made reference to this simply to indicate that unlike his work in physics there is no sign his archeology work has been noticed by archeologists or historians outside BYU. His paper about Olmec iron beads wasn’t even published by BYU’s history or archeology departments but rather by a university general interest magazine [ byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?Type=6&ProdID=39 ] there are only 3 Google hits for the paper [ www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-32,GGLG:en&q=%22applied+to+olmec+iron%2Dore%22 ] (all are linked in this message)] all on BYU or LDS sites . So while his work might be valid it doesn’t seem to be very important. In any case it Jones and his colleagues wrote “The tools of applied physics allow us to search for clues contained in ancient objects themselves.” [ www.ldsmedia.com/3408652#3408699 ] and “we applied x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy, electron microprobe analysis, photomicroscopy, and magnetometer analysis to 3,000-year-old artifacts found in southern Mexico.” [ www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/archaeometry.htm ] i.e. his work in this field doesn’t qualify him to have tested the sample which supposedly came from WTC steel. That he seems to be under the impression that thermate is simply thermite and sulfur when in reality it contains about 14 x more barium nitrate (than sulfur), which he says nothing about, indicates that he might have wandered too far from his area of expertise. Len
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 4, 2006 13:44:20 GMT -4
Utah is about as pro-Bush as it gets in this country - generally speaking we're the last people who would buy into any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Some people think the current Administration is one of the worst ever - and still don't buy this conspiracy theory either, for the simple reason it makes no sense and is contradicted by, well, facts.
As far as the reinforced concrete cite - eh, it was on BAUT somewhere. I'm too lazy to go look it up.
|
|