More From Steve Jones

Peel back the onion....

Howard commented on the fact that the article was changed, much like we edit our posts here. He didn't comment on what was changed, just insinuated that the change meant to reenforce the "conspiracy" Then he goes on to quote another article where one of his compatriots performs a character assassination on Griffin, like that is supposed to support his similar operations on Jones.

Later in the discussion, he berates others for not commenting on the facts of the matter, when he refuses to do the same.

Practice what you preach, Howard. Comment on the facts or refrain from posting. If you really have nothing to say other than you hate the man for his position, then I'd rather not waste my time javing to read your post to get to the others.

Another quote from the above refrenced Jones paper

It would be interesting if underground fires could somehow produce molten steel, for example, but then there should be historical examples of this effect since there have been many large fires in numerous buildings.

Because the fires in the WTC burned for so long, they don’t really compare well to a typical building fire hich is extinguished and cooled relatively quickly.

A better comparison would be to look at the combustion of underground coal fires,

The fire temperature reaches temperatures of 1,700°C deep beneath the ground.

source

The fuel mix in the WTC “pile” consisted of unburned jet fuel, leading diesel fuel, automotive gasoline, as well as liquefied plastics from computers, carpeting, cubicles, paper and paper products, and other flammable materials including welding gasses stored in the basements of the building.

Although this is not the same fuel as a coal seam, given a couple of weeks, this mix had ample time to burn, releasing vast amounts of heat that was trapped in the rubble.

More on coal fire temperatures

If you don’t like that example, then we can look at historical fires a little more.

The Great Chicago Fire:

The Great Fire burned out of control for 24 hours. The flames were so hot that the wheels on streetcars melted. Train tracks turned into twisted steel snakes.

source

Structure fires that reach post flashover stage can easily reach temps in excess of 1200 C.

Charcoal fires wouldn't be able to reach the required temps, as there wasn't sufficient fuel. Most of the jet fuel, as even NIST will tell you, was burned up within the first 10 to 15 minutes of the building fires. To suggest that what little jet fuel was left could have burned for weeks and weeks after the collapses, though the majority was burned in 10 to 15 minutes, is a pretty illogical and ignorant.

Also note that the automobiles were higher up and would not have contributed to the deeper "underground fires." Neither would a mass of plastics. And sorry - concrete and steel aren't that flammable.

And finally, there would be no oxygen source for the bottom of the pile, and thus a poor burn, since the subways were not far underground. Nor is there any evidence of any fires within or even around the subway tunnels.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by bsbray11]

Another blatent bit of misinformation by Prof. Jones.

The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel.

According to the metallurgical analysis, the loss the mass of the steel was due to a process commonly known as “hot corrosion.”

This process does NOT need to approach anywhere near 5,000+ F.

The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

source

A key fact that Jones conveniently ignores is that the corroded steel was pulled out of the WTC 7 rubble after several weeks had elapsed.

As one research presentation asks:

Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed or later as the remains smoldered on the ground for months? At this time we don’t know.”

source


It is Jones’ responsibility as a scientist to apply the principles of Occam’s razor to his speculations. The fact that he doesn’t even mention alternative explanations indicates that his “paper” is hopelessly biased.


[edit on 3-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

One other area where Jones’ research is a bit “light.”

He states*:

Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse. (See 911research.wtc7.net...; also home.comcast.net...) A NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

He neglects to mention that When NIST went back and looked at all of the videos and images from this collapse, they found that the appearance of the antenna sinking into the building first was in fact an optical illusion caused by the top of the building rotating away from the camera at that particular vantage point. Other cameras at other vantage points confirm this. Thus the collapse did not occur as he imagines it to be.

Jones could easily confirm or deny this by viewing the videos himself.

I‘ll grant that in order to do this, he would have to get off his ass and actually make an effort to review the NIST data. Since he hasn’t done this, I’ll just assume that he is another internet warrior, flailing away in his self ordained virtual reality.




*in his paper, referenced above.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And finally, there would be no oxygen source for the bottom of the pile, and thus a poor burn, since the subways were not far underground. Nor is there any evidence of any fires within or even around the subway tunnels.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by bsbray11]

How much oxygen is available for an underground coal fire?


Besides, it is documented that there were a number of welding rigs used by the building engineers and their contractors stored on site.

What do you think would happen if you dropped a building on an oxy-acetylene cart?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
How much oxygen is available for an underground coal fire?

The same as would be required anywhere else. You can't have fire without oxygen, Howard.

Besides, it is documented that there were a number of welding rigs used by the building engineers and their contractors stored on site.

What do you think would happen if you dropped a building on an oxy-acetylene cart?

No, I like this one better: what do you think would happen if Ronald McDonald crawled down there and peed everywhere, so that when the pee evaporated it fuelled the massively hot, weeks-lasting "fires"?

Have to admit, there's just as much evidence for that one.

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, I like this one better: what do you think would happen if Ronald McDonald crawled down there and peed everywhere, so that when the pee evaporated it fuelled the massively hot, weeks-lasting "fires"?

Have to admit, there's just as much evidence for that one.

Don't joke about it mate....

Revelation #2 - Ronald Might Be Connected to Recent Terrorist Actions

Stephen King proved to us long ago that clowns are scary and (more often than not) evil or at least Satanic. Ronald's no exception. Though the Bush adminstration hasn't come and linked Ronald to the 9-11 attack outright, there are statements that seem to imply a logical connection, such as this one, issued from Donald Rumsfeld in early January of 2002: "While we admit that the whereabouts of certain members of Al-Quaeda continues to elude us, we are positive that a small force in Afghanistan is being led by a red-haired clown in a yellow suit. Surveillance seems to indicate that his sleeves are red with white stripes, perhaps to aid in blending in with the rugged jungle terrain."

Title: Ronald McDonald is going to kill everyone.

You might be onto something there you know, I'm going to go and start a thread...

[edit on 3-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Ah, yeah. Ronald in the jungles of Afghanistan. Have to love those intelligence reports!

He pees out pure french fry oil.

That would indeed burn for months.

Consider for a moment the fire tetrahedron which has a 4th component added to those of the traditional triangle of oxygen, fuel, and heat. The bottom of the triangle or 4th face, if you will, points to chemical reactions outside the need for oxygen.

There are many by-products from fire such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulphur dioxide. Flammable by-products can combine with oxygen and burn, thereby feeding the chemical chain reaction of combustion and contribute to the *chain that expands the fire.*

*The vapours produced in fire can also be combustible and contribute to the fire.*

So, to answer a question posed above, "Can steel burn without oxygen?" Yes it can when conditions are right.

An example of one such condition would be magnesium burning atop steel. A molten mass would be the end result.

*The vapours produced in fire can also be combustible and contribute to the fire.*

The point immediately above also supports the burning of steel without oxygen through a chemical chain reaction.

All the points above are absolute facts. Whether they support or mitigate one side's point of view or the other's will not diminsh the scientific facts.

I now leave you to your argument.

Edited for a typo, it's a curse.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by FEMA]

"More from Steven Jones" and we're talking about rare underground coal fires?

Chewbacca defense anyone?

Originally posted by Lumos
"More from Steven Jones" and we're talking about rare underground coal fires?

Chewbacca defense anyone?

Well the underground fires are part of the paper, so sorry if people's arguments for a reasonable explanation are getting to close to home for your comfort and are in danger of extinguishing your ideas

I can't help noticing that you seem to follow some of the rules from the The Rules of Disinformation that you posted in this thread.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.

19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.

I think it's pretty obvious what your 'true colours (as you would say)' are, you are obviously on a hidden agenda and simply seek to spread disinformation. You thought you were smart but you can't hide anymore, I'm onto you now...

[edit on 4-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Aw, come on. Just look at the thermal scans NASA did only 4 days after 911 and then review the coalfire line of argumentation.

And about your disinfo accusations, pasting the disinfo tactics as found on the mentioned link isn't very convincing unless you cite myself adhering to them, or is it for you?

[edit on 4-1-2006 by Lumos]

If you want to pin those tactics on anyone, ask Howard about them. He's been going from one to another to another for months.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
One other area where Jones’ research is a bit “light.”

He states*:

Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse. (See 911research.wtc7.net...; also home.comcast.net...) A NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

He neglects to mention that When NIST went back and looked at all of the videos and images from this collapse, they found that the appearance of the antenna sinking into the building first was in fact an optical illusion caused by the top of the building rotating away from the camera at that particular vantage point. Other cameras at other vantage points confirm this. Thus the collapse did not occur as he imagines it to be.

Jones could easily confirm or deny this by viewing the videos himself.

I‘ll grant that in order to do this, he would have to get off his ass and actually make an effort to review the NIST data. Since he hasn’t done this, I’ll just assume that he is another internet warrior, flailing away in his self ordained virtual reality.




*in his paper, referenced above.

Could I see a link on this information regarding the antenna.

Have a look here.

Blatantly obvious that the "optical illusion" argument is bogus

Originally posted by Clark_Kent

Could I see a link on this information regarding the antenna.

Originally posted by Lumos
Have a look here.

Blatantly obvious that the "optical illusion" argument is bogus

Photographic and videographic records were reviewed to identify structurally-related events. Where possible, all four faces of a building were examined for a given event or time period to provide complete understanding of the building response. Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and may result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.

Pg. 235, NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

Note that the vantage point of the video on the link provided by lumos is from due north as noted by NIST.

If you wish to dispute the NIST claim, you need to provide something from the east or west vantage points.

Also, the theory that the antenna sank into the building assumes a failure of the hat truss system. Is there any evidence of that failure on the exterior columns where the hat truss was attached?

Originally posted by Lumos
"More from Steven Jones" and we're talking about rare underground coal fires?

Hardly rare. they are a major environmental issue. Underground coal fires are burning all over the globe right now.

The point is, he asked if there were any examples that could be looked at.
Jones needs to establish if the underground fires at ground zero were unique or if they followed familiar patterns associated with other underground fires.

If so, them maybe he could uses his expertise in physics to model the fires to validate (or not) his point.

[edit on 9-1-2006 by HowardRoark]

The underground fires are circumstantial evidence. However, "other" underground fires do not behave as those under the WTC, because they actually have fuel sources, oxygen, etc., to burn for so long at high temperatures.

Howard wants us to believe that, even though nearly a full tank's worth of jet fuel burned up in 10 to 15 minutes, what very little managed to theoretically seep into the ground below the complex fueled fires that lasted for months, at even higher temperatures than those in the building. Full tanks worth.

Amazing grasp of logic, guys.