|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
I will post a peer reviewed article that suggests a source soon. |
Sounds good. Please state, as well, if you agree or disagree with the conclusions of the article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
If, as you say, a fire powered by paper and desks can't generate enough heat to melt portions of the steel (I believe the appendix c notes the melting is a result of an alloy effect that lowers a metal's actual melting point) then there must have been another heat source in that big trash pile.
So not a hoax. |
So why has it never happened before in history, nor since? |
Probably because a bunch of loonys have never flown a jet airliner into a 110 story building before? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
If, as you say, a fire powered by paper and desks can't generate enough heat to melt portions of the steel (I believe the appendix c notes the melting is a result of an alloy effect that lowers a metal's actual melting point) then there must have been another heat source in that big trash pile.
So not a hoax. |
So why has it never happened before in history, nor since? |
Probably because a bunch of loonys have never flown a jet airliner into a 110 story building before? |
although building 7 isn't necessary in demonstrating that all 3 WTC collapses were the result of demolition, it does serve as a retort to statements similar to the one above.
MM2, article to come shortly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, so we've identified a heat deficiency.
JOM states:
| Quote: |
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel
beam approached ~1,000�C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a �blacksmith�s weld� in a hand forge. |
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
They state in reference to the office fire temperatures:
| Quote: |
| it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750�800�C range |
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
So where did the heat come from, if not the office fires?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
| Quote: |
Basic thermite is simply a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide. It�s important to have it all in powder form so the iron oxide and aluminum particles will be in contact and react quickly. If you mix the powders thoroughly, and ignite them, the result is molten, white hot iron and a cloud of gray-white aluminum-oxide dust!
Other metal oxides can be used, such as copper oxide, and oxidizers � potassium permanganate is a favorite -- to increase the energy yield of the thermite mixture. Another important additive is SULFUR. Sulfur forms a eutectic with iron so that it will stay liquid at much lower temperatures. Iron melts at around 1538 oC, but with sufficient sulfur added, the melting temperature drops to less than 1000 oC (orange hot).
Thus, as the liquid iron plus sulfur pours in the air we expect it will be orange, and we will see white ash which is the aluminum oxide coming off. Projected droplets of the hot molten metal stew (some are expected) will form into spheres in the air due to surface tension. These products carry information regarding the chemical reactions which generated them � very important information. |
.......
| Quote: |
| An independent laboratory reported high-temperature sulfidation and oxidation � consistent with if not indicative of thermate-caused corrosion � in steel samples taken from the rubble at WTC 7 and the WTC Towers: Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible�The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.39 |
so it seems the chemical signature exists of thermate.
but what about the physical signature: microspheres
| Quote: |
| Projected droplets of the hot molten metal stew (some are expected) will form into spheres in the air due to surface tension |
those are called, 'microspheres'
those were found in WTC dust too.
| Quote: |
| The iron-rich component of the WTC dust sample was analyzed in some detail by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). Using the scanning electron microscope, we found that much of the iron-rich dust was in fact composed of roughly spherical particles � microspheres. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information. |
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
so it seems the chemical and physical signature of thermate have been identified. More research is needed, perhaps a new investigation? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And do any professional organizations agree with these findings? Has the researcher brought his findings for peer review of a professional organization? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| And do any professional organizations agree with these findings? Has the researcher brought his findings for peer review of a professional organization? |
Many 'professionals' agree with his findings.
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree?
So I charge that his findings are direct evidence against the official story and for controlled demolition.
Do you disagree?
And if so, where has he made a mistake in following the scientific method? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You should give his entire paper a read. You will be able to appreciate his call to use the scientific method in determining what happened on 9-11.
The Journal of 9-11 Studies is a peer reviewed electronic journal. It follows the same procedure as mainstream journals. But of course, it is not, mainstream.
Give it a read MM2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Probably because a bunch of loonys have never flown a jet airliner into a 110 story building before? |
Learn some basic physics. The temperature at which jet fuel burns is 1000 degrees less than that which melts steel, EVEN IF loonies fly the fuel into the building. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data."
| Quote: |
| So I charge that his findings are direct evidence against the official story and for controlled demolition. |
His findings, if true, of course would be strong evidence in favor. Until then, he's a guy with a claim that's not been examined by his scientific peers.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How did the sighting of an obelisk meltdown into this discussion.
Talk about unbelievable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
At the moment he is trying to get his findings published in a 'mainstream' journal.
However, because of the implications of his findings, he is experiencing difficulties breaking into the mainstream.
Good science will eventually rise to the top. That is why science is so great, wouldn't you agree? |
This upon we can agree. If his science is good and he has truly considered alternative explanations, then he should have no problem publishing his findings in a real engineering or scientific journal.
|
The implications of his research cannot be dismissed when determining the difficulty of being published.
It is often difficult to get things published, even if the science stands up. Sometimes even science is held down by opposite political and economic goals.
The trans fat debate is a prime example. |
Junior and Rteacher use this "science conspiracy" line. I really do not subscribe to it. The balance to journals is conferences and paper presentations. Anyone is free to read a non-peer reviewed paper. A scientist takes his message directly to his peers and has to defend his ideas before his peers. If they bash away at it and the science survives, it would be pretty hard for the journals to ignore it. Jones would not be a stranger to this, surely. The quantum mechanics vs wave mechanics was won in this venue, the young radicals against the old guard. Their idea stood up to the critics and eventually won the day.
If Jones really thinks he has something, if he really feels the journals are not publishing him for political reasons, surely he can bring his paper before his peers at a conference. It's really that simple.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s=a6f9596ffd61e8edd6d595395f9a95ea&p=2546858&postcount=15
"I've already reviewed Jones's work on X-Ray spectrometry. It's crap. Like many people with only a cursory knowledge of microanalysis, it is easy to misinterpret the data." |
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway?
__________________
His first paper took 4 years before it was published, the scientific process, as you know, takes a lot of time.
Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures?
And what could be the source of the microspheres?
It seems you follow the same line as a lot of people that actually read what I post.
"If it isn't in a mainstream journal, it is meaningless"
that's fine.
but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
[
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway? |
I'm not attempting to disabuse you of your belief. By Jones' own admission he presented a version of this paper at a conference at Berkeley. Didn't exactly set the scientists there on fire, eh?
| Quote: |
| Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures? |
A gap is not evidence.
| Quote: |
| And what could be the source of the microspheres? |
I don't know.
Jref on microspheres.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91019
Ask there.
| Quote: |
| but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Yes. And here let me put my nickel down again in no uncertain terms. If Jones' article was printed in a mainstream scientific or engineering journal, I would be happy to eat crow and say "yes, the evidence strongly suggests military grade explosives brought the towers down and the access to support structures could only have been gained by American government agents."
So what would you consider a falsification of your belief? If he presented his paper at a relevant scientific conference, ie one where attendees are experts in X-Ray spectrometry, and he couldn't defend his hypothesis, would you abandon this line of belief?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
[
from a blog? come on MM2, that was weak. Who is that guy anyway? |
I'm not attempting to disabuse you of your belief. By Jones' own admission he presented a version of this paper at a conference at Berkeley. Didn't exactly set the scientists there on fire, eh?
| Quote: |
| Do you have any ideas as to how temperatures were raised to 1000C, well above office fire temperatures? |
A gap is not evidence.
| Quote: |
| And what could be the source of the microspheres? |
I don't know.
| Quote: |
| but I hope you are willing to accept such findings when they do reach the mainstream. |
Yes. And here let me put my nickel down again in no uncertain terms. If Jones' article was printed in a mainstream scientific or engineering journal, I would be happy to eat crow and say "yes, the evidence strongly suggests military grade explosives brought the towers down and the access to support structures could only have been gained by American government agents."
So what would you consider a falsification of your belief? If he presented his paper at a relevant scientific conference, ie one where attendees are experts in X-Ray spectrometry, and he couldn't defend his hypothesis, would you abandon this line of belief? |
can you post a link to this.
| Quote: |
| By Jones' own admission he presented a version of this paper at a conference at Berkeley. Didn't exactly set the scientists there on fire, eh? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
