A review of the Jones 'paper' part 1

The time has come, I think to look critically at one of the latest manifestos, as it were, for the 9/11 Truth Seeker crowd. Namely the essay written by Professor Steven Jones of BYU. I call it an essay rather than a paper, because the term “paper” suggests that this is a scientific work. It is not. At best this could be called an op/ed piece. Scientific papers present data, explore the limitations of that data and draw limited conclusions from that data. Jones’ essay starts with a conclusion and presents “proof” of that conclusions without considering the limitations of that “proof.” Nor does he attempt to apply the principle of occam’s razor to the data and conclusions that he has drawn.

It has been claimed that this essay has been peer reviewed. If that is so, then the “peers” that reviewed it are either horribly biased, or completely incompetent. It seems that the only criteria to be a “peer” for the purpose of reviewing this paper is the belief in a conspiracy theory related to the events of 9/11. This thread, therefore, is my “peer review” of this essay from the debunker’s perspective.

There are a number of fundamental flaws with this “paper” that I will explore here. The “paper” is divided into 13 “reasons” that Jones presents in support of his claims. I will address each of these reasons in turn.

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

There are a number of metals that have fairly low melting points that are used in construction, aluminum and copper being two. Furthermore, combinations of various metals and contaminants can lower or change melting points. Thus the term “Molten Metal” tells us little about the temperature conditions in the debris pile.

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

So, again this is nothing that wouldn’t be expected after a major fire.

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

I don’t think that this is a valid observation. If she really observed this, then she would have been standing in the pool. The term “flowing” in this case appears to be little more than a literary hyperbole.

Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.

Jones is basing that conclusion on what? One rather questionable use of the word “flowed?” In my opinion, that is reaching pretty far. Since there is no substantive proof of “Flowing” metals, I am going to just chalk that up to hyperbole on the part of Ms. Atlas. In addition, I can not see how Prof. Jones can come to the conclusion that “so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses” from those quotes alone. He is reach for conclusions based on flimsy evidence.

A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: plaguepuppy.net... . The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

Once again, so what? What do does Prof. Jones expect after a large fire? He is right to understand that the metal would probably remain hot for a long time. Underground coal fires have been known to burn for years, decades and in some cased centuries. Thus the length of the elapsed time between 9/11 and the excavation of the hot debris does not provide proof of anything.

Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse would also contribute to the prolonged heating.

Possibly, but on the other hand, those processes could very well have occurred without the presence of thermite. There were substantial fires burning when the buildings collapse. The action of the collapse no doubt fed huge amounts of air into those fires, An enormous quantity of fuel was buried in the debris piles, and the collapse of the structure itself released tons of heat from friction, deformation of metal and the breaking of crystal bonds in the concrete. Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is best. Which is simpler, that their was sufficient energy release from the fires and the collapse to allow extremely high temperatures to build up in the debris pile as it burned in the weeks following the collapse, or that there was thermite in the pile? Obviously, the explanation that does not include the addition of the thermite is a simpler explanation.

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron.

Or perhaps aluminum

Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.

And I maintain that those observations are consistent with a large fire collapsing into a large pile of fuel and debris. The fuel consisting of paper, office materials, construction materials, building maintenance materials, (i.e. lubrication oils, welding rigs, hydraulic fluids, etc. ) Much like an underground coal fire, these burning materials will build up heat and remain hot for some time.

(Note: I edited out a part of the discussion on the properties of thermite. Tocut down on the pot length. See the original paper HR) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!

Does Professor Jones offer any proof to support that claim? No. He provides no mathematical models, nor analysis of the energy from a fire or a collapse.

The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)

The problem is: the fires didn’t go out when the buildings collapsed. In fact, they burned quite intensely, although buried under the rubble, for some time. Thus, no matter what the temperature of the fires were initially, they had plenty of time to reach very high levels.

None of the official reports tackles this mystery. Yet this is evidently a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse.

Not if those portions of the steel that were referred to in the first part of this paper were heated AFTER the collapse. In that case it has nothing to do with the collapse.

So an analysis of the composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This could well become an experiment crucis.

To be continued . . .

Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame.

Professors Eagar and Jones both need to study up on fire science. Temperatures in excess of 1000 °C have been routinely recorded in structure fire tests.

There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke....

Here Eager makes a common mistake in correlating laboratory conditions with actual fire conditions. Post flashover fires commonly produce black smoke, AND high temperatures.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable...Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.
Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of hot metal being extracted at ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following table (see www.processassociates.com... ) provides data regarding the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, at all temperatures whether in solid or liquid forms. Aluminum does incandesce like other metals, but faintly, so that in broad daylight conditions in air, it appears silvery-gray according to experiments done at BYU. [Jones, 2006])

(Note: The color / temperature chart has been edited out HR)

We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead, zinc and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two. Additional photographs of the hot metal could provide further information and advance the research.

Well if there were additional photographs, I’m sure they would have surfaced by now.

The following photograph has become available, evidently showing the now-solidified metal with entrained material, stored (as of November 2005) in a warehouse in New York:

Looks like slag produced in a fire to me. The Chicago Historical Society has a pile of washers fused together by the fire of 1871. Did Mrs. O’leary’s cow use thermite?

The abundance of iron (as opposed to aluminum) in this material is indicated by the reddish rust observed. When a sample is obtained, a range of characterization techniques will quickly give us information we seek. X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) will yield the elemental composition, and electron energy-loss spectroscopy will tell us the elements found in very small amounts that were undetectable with XEDS. Electron-backscattered diffraction in the scanning electron microscope will give us phase information; the formation of certain precipitates can tell us a minimum temperature the melt must have reached. We will endeavor to obtain and publish these data, whatever they reveal.
An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1. The photograph on the left shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with agrayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending from white-hot molten iron "blob" from the reaction. (Experiment at BYU by the author in which thermite-plus-sulfur cut through a steel cup in a fraction of a second. Any thermite reaction is a dangerous reaction and should only be performed by a trained professional capable of assessing the hazards and risks.)

Mr. Miller captured two ladder-like structures in his photograph (lower left of the right-most photograph above; a cleaner photo is being sought), consistent with steel structures observed in the core of WTC 1. Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure. (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.) It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites.

Or it is possible that this is just the dust from the collapse, caught on as streaming off of the column as it falls.

The observations are consistent with the use of thermite or one of its variants. However, further analysis of this and additional photographs from the series is necessary before any firm conclusions can be drawn about this line of evidence.

These observations are also consistent with the accumulation of dust and debris on the surfaces of the column which were then blown off when the column fell.

Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse: video.google.com... capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below:

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability.

Why would it flow away? If the floors were sagging, it would have more likely pooled. In fact, if you look closely enough. The other photographs of this stream clearly show the molten material turning a silvery color as it falls down.
To be continued . . .

But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video is in fact consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip above, the white-hot interior is evidently exposed as the metal "splashes".) Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground (right photograph) further rules out aluminum, and suggests a mid-flight thermite reaction (typical of thermite).

A “mid-flight” thermite reaction? A thermite reaction releases a large quantity of bright UV light. Where is that light?

The reader may wish to compare the dripping molten metal observed on the corner of the South Tower just before its collapse with the dripping molten metal from known thermite reactions: www.checktheevidence.com... (backup available here: www.veronicachapman.com... .)
If an aluminothermic reaction was indeed used to sever steel columns as strongly suggested by the photos and video above, then along with molten iron, aluminum oxide should be found in unusual abundance and ultra-fine particulate-size in the toxic dust from the collapses of the Towers and WTC 7. We intend to look for these residual end-products, in particular, for iron and entrained aluminum oxide in solidified slag extracted from one of the WTC-molten-metal pools.
Other explanations for the observations are sought, of course. For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact NO "violent thermite" reactions seen.

No “mid-flight” reactions either.

We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006; available at www.scholarsfor911truth.org... ] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with molten aluminum.
We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.)

Whoa. “ too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building?” As I pointed out before, it is impossible to characterize the temperature of a structure fire based on the color of the smoke produces, yet this a common claim by conspiracy theorists. Not only is that a total misunderstanding of the principles of fire science, but it grossly over simplifies the dynamics of the fires in the towers. The claim that all of the areas of the building were not exposed to high fire temperatures just because there was black smoke pouring out of the top of the building is patently absurd and over simplistic. Furthermore, Jones has provided no support for his claim that the fires were somehow cooler than a normal structure fire would be, even one without the addition of several thousand gallons of jet fuel.
To be continued . . .

This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray, while molten iron (with its characteristic high emissivity) will appear yellow-white (at ~1100 oC) as observed in the molten metal dripping from the South Tower just before its collapse (see www.veronicachapman.com...).

Molten aluminum poured onto rusted steel: no violent reactions observed at all.

Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports,

Jones’ conclusions are based on a couple of photographs with multiple interpretations and a number of major assumptions on his part. No, I do not think that he has made his case.

not long before explosives finished the demolition job. Roughly 2,000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men)

Another example of speculation presented as fact. Just how has Jones determined that amount of explosive was needed, and how were these “Pre-positioned” by just a few men? Obviously Professor Jones has never worked in a large building complex and has no idea what would be involved in such an undertaking.

would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down. The estimate is based on the amount of explosives used in controlled demolitions in the past and the size of the buildings. Radio-initiated firing of the charges is implicated here, perhaps using Joule heating or superthermite matches. Using computer-controlled radio signals, it would be an easy matter to begin the explosive demolition near the point of entry of the planes in the Towers (to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse; cutter-charges could have been pre-placed at numerous spots in the building, since one would not know exactly where the planes would enter.)

Wow, what a lot of assumptions that are being presented here with no discussion as to their limitations. So, these radio controlled charges were somehow not disturbed or damaged by the impacts of the planes or the fires (not only do the charges and the detonators have to survive the impact and fires, but so do the radio receivers.) Then somehow these were all set off with no outward indications that these explosives were detonating, by radio control, no less, in buildings notorious for their poor radio reception. This is a perfect example of speculation being repackaged as a “fact.”

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 oF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite.An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

In any case, the “match” would have still been sensitive to premature ignition through exposure to temperatures well within an office fire environment.

Thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch.

Add a little perchlorate to the mix. That’ll get it going.

"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (

Dang it Roark... It is going to take me HOURS to quote and argue this whole thing... Hours I tell you.

(There... I do have a sense of humor)

Here is where Vushta posts: "HA SEE GUYS I TOLD YOU SO! I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! I RULE! YOU JUST GOT YOUR ASSES HANDED TO YOU"

in 3... 2... 1...

Originally posted by HowardRoark

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)

There are a number of metals that have fairly low melting points that are used in construction, aluminum and copper being two. Furthermore, combinations of various metals and contaminants can lower or change melting points. Thus the term “Molten Metal” tells us little about the temperature conditions in the debris pile.

You even stated it in the external quote....red hot. Does aluminum or copper glow red hot in daylight at these low temperatures you are stating?

The term "molten metal" might not tell us much about the temperatures in the debris pile but the NASA thermal photos do tell us alot.

The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher.“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)

So, again this is nothing that wouldn’t be expected after a major fire.

Huh? Something that would be expected? Pulling out dripping molten steel from the debris pile weeks after the event? What kind of reality do you live in Howard?

Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)

I don’t think that this is a valid observation. If she really observed this, then she would have been standing in the pool. The term “flowing” in this case appears to be little more than a literary hyperbole.

She might be wrong about flowing beneath her, but the fact that she saw molten metal (glowing red hot) at all tells us enough.

Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses.

Jones is basing that conclusion on what? One rather questionable use of the word “flowed?” In my opinion, that is reaching pretty far. Since there is no substantive proof of “Flowing” metals, I am going to just chalk that up to hyperbole on the part of Ms. Atlas. In addition, I can not see how Prof. Jones can come to the conclusion that “so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to subterranean fires after the collapses” from those quotes alone. He is reach for conclusions based on flimsy evidence.

So, eyewitness accounts are flimsy when it is against your theories? But perfectly accountable when it fits your agenda...whatever that is.

A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: plaguepuppy.net... . The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.

Once again, so what? What do does Prof. Jones expect after a large fire? He is right to understand that the metal would probably remain hot for a long time. Underground coal fires have been known to burn for years, decades and in some cased centuries. Thus the length of the elapsed time between 9/11 and the excavation of the hot debris does not provide proof of anything.

Again with the underground coal mine fires? If we can't compare the structures of the towers to anyother building, you can't compare the subterrainian fires with a coal fire....both totally different.

Possibly, but on the other hand, those processes could very well have occurred without the presence of thermite. There were substantial fires burning when the buildings collapse. The action of the collapse no doubt fed huge amounts of air into those fires, An enormous quantity of fuel was buried in the debris piles, and the collapse of the structure itself released tons of heat from friction, deformation of metal and the breaking of crystal bonds in the concrete. Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation is best. Which is simpler, that their was sufficient energy release from the fires and the collapse to allow extremely high temperatures to build up in the debris pile as it burned in the weeks following the collapse, or that there was thermite in the pile? Obviously, the explanation that does not include the addition of the thermite is a simpler explanation.

Care to show us your temperature calculations? You state that Jone's paper doesn't supply this or that. Show us your calculations or others calcs that show there was enough heat to acheive this. Until you do, Occam's Razor goes the other way. It would be far easier to obtain these temperatures with the additional thermite.

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron.

Or perhaps aluminum

Show me how aluminum could have gotten to the temperatures needed to glow in direct sunlight please.

Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.

And I maintain that those observations are consistent with a large fire collapsing into a large pile of fuel and debris. The fuel consisting of paper, office materials, construction materials, building maintenance materials, (i.e. lubrication oils, welding rigs, hydraulic fluids, etc. ) Much like an underground coal fire, these burning materials will build up heat and remain hot for some time.

Says who? You? Because I've yet to hear NIST's or FEMA's explaination of this.

(Note: I edited out a part of the discussion on the properties of thermite. Tocut down on the pot length. See the original paper HR) On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not

I think I may have deleted some of this.

The rest of your post is not worth it. We've argued these for a million times already. Howard, you have done a complete waste of time "debunk" because you have not debunked anything. You have done exactly what you criticize Jones for....speculating. You have speculated just about everything to "debunk" Jone's paper. His paper still stands in my book.

Originally posted by Griff

Huh? Something that would be expected? Pulling out dripping molten steel from the debris pile weeks after the event? What kind of reality do you live in Howard?

The reality where large fires in enclosed, well insulated conditions accumulate heat.

The reality where the lotal heat release from burning materials under these conditions is quite sufficient to heat steel in excess of 1000 °C. This is the reality of science.

Originally posted by Griff

She might be wrong about flowing beneath her, but the fact that she saw molten metal (glowing red hot) at all tells us enough.

That is not what she said.

Originally posted by Griff

So, eyewitness accounts are flimsy when it is against your theories? But perfectly accountable when it fits your agenda...whatever that is.

In reference to “flowing” molten steel, yes.

Originally posted by Griff
Again with the underground coal mine fires? If we can't compare the structures of the towers to anyother building, you can't compare the subterrainian fires with a coal fire....both totally different.

You can compare the fire behavior of the WTC buildings both pre and post collapse with known fire behavior.

The fact is, there was plenty of fuel and oxygen under the debris pile to support the fires burning building up heat for a while. Jones needs to acknowledge this fact and discuss it in relation to his claims.

Originally posted by Griff
Care to show us your temperature calculations? You state that Jone's paper doesn't supply this or that. Show us your calculations or others calcs that show there was enough heat to acheive this. Until you do, Occam's Razor goes the other way. It would be far easier to obtain these temperatures with the additional thermite.

OK, Quick and simple
Assume that the fuel load of the building was the equivalent of one kg of wood per square foot, 30,000 SF of rentable space per floor, and 100 floors. Assume that 20% of the available fuel burned following the collapse. At 15 megajoules/kg for wood, that equals 9 million megajoules of heat released.

Originally posted by Griff
Show me how aluminum could have gotten to the temperatures needed to glow in direct sunlight please.

Post flashover fires have been recorded at well over 1000 °C.

And I maintain that those observations are consistent with a large fire collapsing into a large pile of fuel and debris. The fuel consisting of paper, office materials, construction materials, building maintenance materials, (i.e. lubrication oils, welding rigs, hydraulic fluids, etc. ) Much like an underground coal fire, these burning materials will build up heat and remain hot for some time.

Originally posted by Griff
Says who? You? Because I've yet to hear NIST's or FEMA's explaination of this.

Why? The behavior of the debris pile post collapse in not their concern. Are you stating that a large pile of burning debris won’t continue burning for some time?

If you don’t like the underground coal fire analogy, how about the tire fire analogy? either way, given the huge size of the debris pile, the energy released and stored in the debris, there is no reason to suspect that the fires within the pile would not generate high temperatures.



[edit on 20-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Griff
The rest of your post is not worth it. We've argued these for a million times already. Howard, you have done a complete waste of time "debunk" because you have not debunked anything. You have done exactly what you criticize Jones for....speculating. You have speculated just about everything to "debunk" Jone's paper. His paper still stands in my book.

I agree that we have argued many of these points continuously here.

The fact is, structural fire regulary exceed 1000°C.

The fact is, the fires were burning for weeks under conditions that did not allow the heat to significantly dissipate.

Jones speculates that this is the result of a thermite reaction. I speculate that this is the result of normal fire dynamics, only of a very large scale.




[edit on 20-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It seems that the only criteria to be a “peer” for the purpose of reviewing this paper is the belief in a conspiracy theory related to the events of 9/11.

Can you back this up? It seems the validity of your post depends upon it, since you take this for granted and use it as a token to be biased.

Jones' paper was physics-oriented, as he is a physicist, and it was peer reviewed by other physicists. As far as I know, there is no way for you to tell whether or not these reviewers actually believed any of what was in Jones' paper.


The points you address individually are simply rehashes of what you've been preaching for months on ATS already (besides all the non-sequitur one-liners that are absolutely worthless).

You conveniently leave out considerations such as the colors of the metals (indications of extreme heating considering the bright glowing in broad daylight), meaning you don't even address this sort of information, even though it's been presented time after time elsewhere on these boards to counter the claims you're reasserting. So you're really making no new contributions here, Howard, but just rehashing the same crap that we're all already familiar with, and have discussed, and have pointed out flaws with.

I would like to know what qualifies you to make such judgements and i would also like to see some resources to back up your claims. Just because you say it aint so doesn't mean anything, provide some hard facts and research. I also don't like cherry pickers so provide some parts that you do agree with so that we know you're not just doing this because its your job.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Dang it Roark... It is going to take me HOURS to quote and argue this whole thing... Hours I tell you.

(There... I do have a sense of humor)

Here is where Vushta posts: "HA SEE GUYS I TOLD YOU SO! I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG! I RULE! YOU JUST GOT YOUR ASSES HANDED TO YOU"

in 3... 2... 1...

Daaaang....wrong again!

(he says, as the testing of 'sense of humor continues)

Just to add about burning or smoldering for a length of time.

There was a land fill (PJP) in Jersey City NJ that was burning underground for 20 years or so. I'm sure there is some data out there on the temperture.
If I remember it was finally put out in the late 80's or early 90's

Jones' paper was physics-oriented, as he is a physicist, and it was peer reviewed by other physicists.

Can you back that up??
Who actually peer reviewed his paper?

You conveniently leave out considerations such as the colors of the metals (indications of extreme heating considering the bright glowing in broad daylight), meaning you don't even address this sort of information, even though it's been presented time after time elsewhere on these boards to counter the claims you're reasserting. So you're really making no new contributions here, Howard, but just rehashing the same crap that we're all already familiar with, and have discussed, and have pointed out flaws with.

Convieniently leave out?? I can taste the irony.

How about trying to determine that actual temp via color from a "any 'ol camera in any 'ol correction setting" is a bogus criteria.

As far as I know, there is no way for you to tell whether or not these reviewers actually believed any of what was in Jones' paper.

..so do they support the conclusions or not? The implication seemed to be that they did.

Originally posted by Vushta
How about trying to determine that actual temp via color from a "any 'ol camera in any 'ol correction setting" is a bogus criteria.

Please tell me, what would I be seeing differently if I were actually there, in terms of colors? Darker, brighter? By how much?

Can you provide credible sources in your response?

As far as I know, there is no way for you to tell whether or not these reviewers actually believed any of what was in Jones' paper.

..so do they support the conclusions or not? The implication seemed to be that they did.

Peer reviews are not based upon whether or not the reviewers necessarily agree with what is being presented, but merely that it is up to scientific standards. They are also anonymous, but Jones was given some background information on the reviewers.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by HowardRoark

OK, Quick and simple
Assume that the fuel load of the building was the equivalent of one kg of wood per square foot, 30,000 SF of rentable space per floor, and 100 floors. Assume that 20% of the available fuel burned following the collapse. At 15 megajoules/kg for wood, that equals 9 million megajoules of heat released.

Is that 1 kg/ft^2 all over the tower? Can you show the calcs for that? I seam to be coming up with 45 mil megajoules * floor. Not joules per floor. I might be doing something wrong in your thinking or something?

Post flashover fires have been recorded at well over 1000 °C.

That's all fine and good...but I'd still like to see at what temperature does aluminum glow yellowish orange in broad daylight. Couldn't NIST afford to heat aluminum to this temperature to find out the answer? Could Jones? I wish he would. Then we could stop argueing about this crap.

Why? The behavior of the debris pile post collapse in not their concern. Are you stating that a large pile of burning debris won’t continue burning for some time?

It depends on the situation and I will concede that in a perfect world...yes it could have happened.

If you don’t like the underground coal fire analogy, how about the tire fire analogy?

either way, given the huge size of the debris pile, the energy released and stored in the debris, there is no reason to suspect that the fires within the pile would not generate high temperatures.

Enough to have to use the same chemical used to put out thermite? In your perfect world maybe....but there's too many coincedences for me. I'm not saying that I believe in all the conspiracies but you have to admit there's at least one thing you question?

[edit on 7/20/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I would like to know what qualifies you to make such judgements and i would also like to see some resources to back up your claims. Just because you say it aint so doesn't mean anything, provide some hard facts and research. I also don't like cherry pickers so provide some parts that you do agree with so that we know you're not just doing this because its your job.

I do believe it is professor Jones's responsibility to provide the back up for his claims.

All I am doing is pointing out where deficiencies exist.

Once again, so what? What do does Prof. Jones expect after a large fire?

This was weeks after the attack. The fire in the WTC was never large, just before it collapsed we see hardly any fire (North Tower.) The fires weren't large Howard before the buildings collapsed, I want you to prove that they were.

The problem is: the fires didn’t go out when the buildings collapsed. In fact, they burned quite intensely, although buried under the rubble, for some time. Thus, no matter what the temperature of the fires were initially, they had plenty of time to reach very high levels.

You have proof of this?

Professors Eagar and Jones both need to study up on fire science. Temperatures in excess of 1000 °C have been routinely recorded in structure fire tests.

Correct. However I am not sure if Routinely is the word you want to use.

As I pointed out before, it is impossible to characterize the temperature of a structure fire based on the color of the smoke produces

The only fires I have ever seen that were hot that had black smoke had RED HOT FLAMES. That were actually very visible.

Are there any other large buildings that suffered the kinds of structural damage that all three of these did?

I am not educated enough on this, but how about the B-25 bomber that crashed into the New York Empire State building? Just a shot in the dark...

The B-25 was NOTHING like this, and the Empire State Building didn't suffer anywhere NEAR the structural damage of the WTC. A B-25 is about 1/4 the size of a 767, moving less than half the speed, into a completely concrete building. It was moving slow enough that portions of the plane were sticking out of the building.

Due to research and teaching commitments, I rarely have time to read and respond in the various forum discussions regarding 9/11.

In this case, I was invited to say something -- I will be brief.

Many of the questions raised above are answered here:

www.physics.byu.edu...

In particular, we (3 physicists and a geologist) have obtained new results regarding the solidified metal which provide compelling evidence for the use of thermate.

I would also like to call your attention to the peer-reviewed papers published in the
Journalof911Studies.com .

Comments on the papers by Prof Kenneth Kuttler, Dr. Frank Legge and Gordon Ross would be particularly welcomed. Don't ignore these papers...