Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Dr. Jones reports unreacted thermite chips from WTC dust.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Dr. Jones reports unreacted thermite chips from WTC dust.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject:

Here is an essay from Hoffman. He isn't a seismic expert but he does give a detailed account of seismic interpretations.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html

Here is one seismic expert that supports the alternative hypothesis.

Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement

Quote:

Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities.

In his statement, Mr. Ayres wrote, �I support the work of Dr. Steven Jones. He has provided a scientific foundation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center (WTC) towers. I read the FEMA September, 2002 report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and initially accepted their theory of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. As more information became available on the web, I was motivated to research the subject in a more rigorous manner. I have carefully studied the Jones 2006 paper, �Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?� and concluded that it is a rational step-by-step study that meets the accepted standards for scientific building research. His critical reviews of the FEMA, NIST, and 9/11 Commission reports are correct.�

Mr. Ayres continues, �Steven Jones� call for a �serious investigation� of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned �cutter-charges� must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out.�

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070716123650880

watch the video MM2. You will be able to see pre-collapse explosions above the points of impact just before collapse.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

Quote:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070716123650880

watch the video MM2. You will be able to see pre-collapse explosions above the points of impact just before collapse.

Where is his expertise in reading seismic data given?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

Quote:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070716123650880

watch the video MM2. You will be able to see pre-collapse explosions above the points of impact just before collapse.

Where is his expertise in reading seismic data given?

why don't you watch the video MM2.

you will be able to see pre-collapse explosions.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

-go to the 3:42 mark. watch the upper part of the building above the impact zone. around 3:45 you will see 4 or 5 explosions coming from the top part of the building just before it begins to collapse.
-watch it 3 or 4 times and you will clearly see the explosions just before collapse begins.

I don't see anything. I see smoke and matter being ejected short in response to the downward pressure of the collapse.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

I don't see anything. I see smoke and matter being ejected short in response to the downward pressure of the collapse.

it is above the point of impact. pressure would build below collapsing floors, not above.

watch it 4 or 5 times. you'll see it.

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

I don't see anything. I see smoke and matter being ejected short in response to the downward pressure of the collapse.

it is above the point of impact. pressure would build below collapsing floors, not above.

watch it 4 or 5 times. you'll see it.

As non experts we can see almost anything in that.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:32 am Post subject:

edit:duplicate Last edited by loose_ends on Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:36 am; edited 2 times in total

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:34 am Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

I don't see anything. I see smoke and matter being ejected short in response to the downward pressure of the collapse.

it is above the point of impact. pressure would build below collapsing floors, not above.

watch it 4 or 5 times. you'll see it.

As non experts we can see almost anything in that.

As observers we can see events and logically assess if they are plausible under each hypothesis. This of course is arm chair science and really not worth squat, but fun nonetheless. Thank goodness Dr. Jones and others are doing real science.

With that said lets consider various appeals to authority.

WTC7 is an obvious point of issue. NIST has recently had a teleconference to discuss progress. Their hypothesis is still in progress. Surprisingly, there was no mention of diesel gas. Here is a quick summary.

Quote:

However, NIST admitted yesterday that the destruction of Building 7 had nothing to do with diesel fuel.

As of yesterday, NIST's "working collapse hypothesis" is, instead, that:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

NIST explains that "The working hypothesis for the initiating event sequence that characterizes the initial local failure is based on fire-induced failures initiating in the tenant floors:

Floor beams, slabs, and connections heat more quickly and to higher temperatures than the columns.
Elevated temperatures in the floor elements lead to thermal expansion, sagging, and weakening that result in failure of floor connections and/or buckling of floor beams.
Sufficient floor component failures (connections and/or beams) result in at least one long unsupported column at the lower floors, which leads to the initiation of global collapse.

Richard Gage was able to speak at the teleconference. He had 3 minutes and could not ask questions. He could only make a public statement.

He reminded NIST that:

-the building fell at NEAR (6.5 seconds) free fall speed; support columns gave almost no resistance to collapsing floors

-collapse was almost completely symmetrical and into its footprint; complete destruction of the building

-molten steel found; melted steel structures reported by FEMA and JOM

-etc
-etc
-etc

BUT, Richard Gage is no demolition expert, right?

Lets see what one demolition expert has to say about the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T3_mmGvfQQ

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

Thank goodness Dr. Jones and others are doing real science.

Let me suggest if he was doing real science he'd take this to the appropriate scientific conferences and read his paper there and get peer review. That he's not and taking it to the media leads me to believe he's not really doing real science.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

Thank goodness Dr. Jones and others are doing real science.

You actually have no idea what Dr. Jones has and has not done. You also have no idea what peer review processes he is currently involved in.

Independent lab will confirm or reject thermite chips. One of us is going to have some serious thinking to do when the results are announced.

How about the appeal to authority I posted.

Remember, the demolition expert.

Any thoughts on that?

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject:

loose_ends wrote:

You actually have no idea what Dr. Jones has and has not done.

I see a guy taking his findings to the public and not arguing them before peers at conferences.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject:

mindmetoo wrote:

loose_ends wrote:

You actually have no idea what Dr. Jones has and has not done.

I see a guy taking his findings to the public and not arguing them before peers at conferences.

Imagine what you don't see.

And about the demolition expert.

I've made an appeal to an authority, and you are now ignoring it.

Why?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:08 am Post subject:

Here's the latest development among the arm chair debunkers.

From; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101863

Quote:

Thanks RedIbis....

I am not questioning Jones' data, I am questioning his interpretation of said data.
You need to take a look at Volume III of the famous "Particle Atlas" by Walter McCrone. This provides scanning electron micrographs and EDX spectra for thousands of common materials. The section from pages 760 - 780 is most interesting since it shows flyash microspheres from large domestic waste incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics as well as flyash from coal-fired furnaces. The EDX spectra show major peaks from Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe together with smaller peaks from Ti, S and Cl.

Jones' spectra are a perfect match for FLY ASH!

what is fly ash?

what does it look like?

does it look like small chips?

Quote:

Fly ash is the residue from the combustion of coal. In the past it was generally released into the atmosphere, out of the smoke stack, but pollution control equipment mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to release. It is generally stored on site at most US electric power generation facilities. Depending upon the source and makeup of the coal being burned, the components of the fly ash produced vary considerably but all fly ash includes substantial amounts of silica (silicon dioxide, SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline) and lime (calcium oxide, CaO).

In and of itself, fly ash is neither toxic or poisonous, nor is it considered hazardous EXCEPT when it becomes airborne. Released into the atmosphere, fly ash can be extremely dangerous to humans as well as all other animals. To understand how and why this happens we need to more closely examine these particles of concern.

Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. Since the particles solidify while suspended in the exhaust gases, fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 �m to 100 �m. They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms, amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), and are hence a suitable source of aluminum and silicon for geopolymers. They are also pozzolanic in nature and react with calcium hydroxide and alkali to form calcium silicate hydrates (cementitious compounds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

So they don't look like chips. They are spherical due to air tension.

That sounds like a closer match to Jones' microspheres.

So, how could one determine if Jones' microspheres are actually fly ash?

One could test the amount of fly ash in the environment.

One could test the amount of fly ash in building dust.

One could compare actual fly ash to Jones' microspheres.

As of yet, it seems fly ash is the only natural possible cause.

My prediction:

Jones does the above tests to rule out fly ash.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe