thoughts on Prof. Jones proof of thermite/mate

Ok, so its not exactly a secret what i think of the thermite/thermate theories but there have always been a few things i had a problem with concerning his "proof" of thermite or thermate in the wtc towers.

Now, ill freely admit that i havnt poured over his findings with a fine toothed comb so i may have some of the particulars wrong, and if this is the case feel free to tell me. im not out to debunk him outright by any means but i do have some concerns over his work i feel are valid and deserve a little time of their own.

the first point id like to bring up, which while important, is pretty secondary. from what i had read initially about his test sample was that it had pretty much NO chain of custody to it. the impression i got was that he got the sample from some anonymous source and tested it and found sulpher. i then read somewhere else that he later, PERSONALLY aquired a sample (i dont recall how he did if this is indeed the case) that he tested adn again found sulpher. now, if he personally aquired a sample that is without a doubt from the WTC towers then thats good, he has a clear chain of custody on it and so any tests he did would be valid. im not going to go so far as to question his integrity by saying that he cant "prove" he got it from a chunk of WTC steel so if he says he did then ill be gracious enough to accept taht at face value. however, if his only "sample" is from some guy that got it from a guy then even he shouldnt have tested it and held it up as PROOF as without a chain of custody its worthless. thats like me getting a chunk of steel from "some guy who said it was from the WTC" and finding no sulpher and claiming jones is bunk as a result. i guess what i mean is that his sample could have come from anyhwere.

the next question i have, and this one is more important mostly becuase it sets up my final point, how many other steel samples from just random sources (in other words 100% NOT from the WTC sites) in order to set up a control? it seems that without a control group to set up what may be "normal" levels of sulpher, his tests are again meaningless.

the last point id like to make is, is it at ALL possible that the sulpher levels in that sample were...well...normal? could they have been contaminated at all? there are a lot of people who raise points like "well drywall has sulpher in it" etc and these posts are usually met with some resistance as being just an attempt to debunk jones. i personally feel they are valid as sulpher isnt exactly a rare mineral in a variety of materials but thats neither here nor there. it goes back to his control group. but, where that control group would REALLY have let him present his findings as FACT is in the fact that the modern steel making process has sulpher involved.

iron ore can be found naturally in the form of FeS2 and its possible that the sulpher isnt removed 100% in the process, though as i dont know how much of the worlds steel is made using pyrite ill be willing to say that its possible that wasnt the source of the sulpher but it IS possible it was also. however, the MOST likely candidate for the sulpher contamination is the fact that steel is made with coke as the source of the carbon. coke DOES contain some sulpher and without a control group to establish what is "normal sulpher content" its impossible for him to say that since his steel had sulpher in it it HAD to come from thermate or thermite.

i mean if he could trace the steel back to its original manufacturer and they could provide documents that said that they had been using sulpher free carbon for well over 30 years then he'd have a case. however unless he DID set up a baseline, i feel his findings in this matter are at the very least suspect. at most wishful thinking on his part.

again, im really not trying to "debunk" jones' findings, im just asking questions in the hopes taht someone may know more about his work than i do; specifically where it relates to his control groups. and anyone from either side of the debate that really does want the truth and doesnt want to waste their time pursuing theories that may be inherently flawed should be wondering about these same questions

also, i am willing to admit i may be misinformed about the steel manufacturing process or the chemical composition of 'coke' so if someone can find better resources on this that show im off on a tangent please feel free to share.

Damo

The thermite/ate theory is laughable simply because it does not make any sense, given the observed evidence.

It is merely a bad attempt to try and explain the molten metal in the basements. You really think thermite/ate can create a "foundry" that takes over 100 days to put out? Somehow all the molten metal just managed to find its way into the basement/pit, without leaving massive pools on the surface of the pile?

Somehow the remaining core columns were not covered in glowing molten metal. The ones which stood for 10 seconds, then collapsed.

Somehow the iron beams which were normal on one end, when pulled out of the pile, burst into flames on the other end?

Somehow thermite/ate managed to pulverize 99% of the structures..


Thermite/ate is a plausible, but utterly rubbish theory.

lol well simon, for once i agree with you.

i guess im just asking questions or offering "food for thought" to those out there that DO think that thermat/mite is THE answer and think jones was spot on in his assessments.

and we could be wrong, building could have been LOADED with thermite/mate. i doubt it but hey, im willing to concede i could be dead wrong.

but for those that DO believe jones...im just curious about his methods and offering other possible solutions to the "how'd the sulpher get into the steel if it wasnt thermite/mate" questions.

but wow, we agree on something lol

I posed a thorough critique of Steven Jones' thermate claim in my thread at:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Damocles
however, if his only "sample" is from some guy that got it from a guy then even he shouldnt have tested it and held it up as PROOF as without a chain of custody its worthless. thats like me getting a chunk of steel from "some guy who said it was from the WTC" and finding no sulpher and claiming jones is bunk as a result. i guess what i mean is that his sample could have come from anyhwere.

Isn't that what he actually did at first? Which even puts doubts in my mind. Plus, I would like to know if it is possible for sulfur to get on the steel from gypsum.

the next question i have, and this one is more important mostly becuase it sets up my final point, how many other steel samples from just random sources (in other words 100% NOT from the WTC sites) in order to set up a control? it seems that without a control group to set up what may be "normal" levels of sulpher, his tests are again meaningless.

This wouldn't be hard for him to do either. Just set a fire and place A-36 steel next to sheetrock (gypsum). See if there's sulfur on the steel. Probably the easiest test you could perform on the whole 9/11 debate. Why hasn't he yet? Or has he? I don't know.

the last point id like to make is, is it at ALL possible that the sulpher levels in that sample were...well...normal?

Your third point got me thinking about his controll group. He should very well have some samples where thermate was used to sever the column. Do those have the same amount of sulfur in them? I haven't seen anything yet.

coke DOES contain some sulpher and without a control group to establish what is "normal sulpher content" its impossible for him to say that since his steel had sulpher in it it HAD to come from thermate or thermite.

Yes, scientists should know better than to use absolutes. Unless they are absolutely sure. I'd also like to see his data that makes him absolutely sure.

Yes, this is still me. No one has highjacked my account.

You bring very good questions to the table. Hopefully they will be answered one way or the other.

I've asked before and I'll ask again. "WHAT POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL?"

It is extremely simple to debunk thermite/thermate. One simple question.

How do you keep the burning thermite/thermate on the I-beam when it starts to melt the steel?

It will flow away and set anything nearby on fire. When they use thermite to weld railroad tracks there is a ceramic liner to keep the molten steel from flowing out of the weld.

OK
so what is the cause of the molten metal?
Im curious as to the other reasons for said molten metal.

Originally posted by junglelord
OK
so what is the cause of the molten metal?
Im curious as to the other reasons for said molten metal.

no idea. wasnt the intent of this thread. the intent of this thread was to ask some questions about jones research methods. it is HIS "findings" that most people who believe that thermite was the cause of the collapse use as "proof" and what im asking is; did he use anything even remotely like the scientific method to prove his case?

did he establish a baseline for what "normal" sulpher content in steel is?
did he obtain samples using a clear and provable chain of custody on said samples?
did he test other samples that were not from the wtc to compare for sulpher content?
did he take into consideration that coke contains sulpher when he did his tests?
did he take into consideration that drywall contains some sulpher when he did his tests?

because if he didnt...then his "findings" are bunk and so is his "proof"

what i think happened, and i could be wrong, is that he decided that it was thermite (becuase they found no evidence of high explosives) and tested the first "sample" he could get regardless of its origin, found sulpher and said "HA I WAS RIGHT!!"

i could be wrong, im willing to admit that, if he did have a control group and his sample does have a clear chain of custody and he still found ELEVATED levels of sulpher then he very well may have something.

but nothing ive read of his "research" leads me to think this is the case.

If thermite was used, it wasn't the only thing used. I was actually writing my thoughts on Steve Jones theory earlier today so I will share some of them with you.

Firstly, who is to say Steve Jones is correct? If you think about it then it was probably in his own interests to deny it. If it wasn't for Steve Jones and his cabal we may have some working cold fusion plants by now! (jokingly).

Perhaps Steve Jones would have a heart attack if he found out for sure nukes were used and it would affect him much more deeply than others, he also may not of realised it or pushed it to start with and has decided to stick to his guns, so to speak.

Another angle is that I think based on his reputation he has no choice but to deny the presence of a nuclear event and stick with his theory for fear of harming his rep even further, getting himself into trouble and possibly endangering his life. Remember Jones is/was supposed to be a nuclear physician, he should know better than anyone if a typical atomic bomb went off, which is perhaps why he so strongly refuse it as it goes beyond the realms of what he believes and teaches (much like cold fusion). He gives his reasons but they don't add up, much like his thermite theory.



[edit on 5-6-2007 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I've asked before and I'll ask again. "WHAT POOLS OF MOLTEN METAL?"

There are plenty of quotes that you must have missed.

In addition to the FDNY witnessing the molten metal, Leslie
Robertson, the structural engineer of the WTC noted: "As of 21
days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running," at the National Conference of
Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001.

Source: clearstation.etrade.com...

I would imagine that a structural engineer of Leslie Robinson's stature would know what molten steel looks like as oppossed to just molten metal.

It is extremely simple to debunk thermite/thermate. One simple question.

How do you keep the burning thermite/thermate on the I-beam when it starts to melt the steel?

Since it would be more of an explosive force rather than a mere melting, it would be the same as any other cutter charge.

www.youtube.com...

Oh, I know I'm going to hear "but that was rebar and not a column." My answer. How thick was that rebar? How thick were the columns? Not much difference in my book.

It will flow away and set anything nearby on fire. When they use thermite to weld railroad tracks there is a ceramic liner to keep the molten steel from flowing out of the weld.

And you can't imagine a ceramic cutter charge?

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 6/5/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
[There are plenty of quotes that you must have missed.

In addition to the FDNY witnessing the molten metal, Leslie
Robertson, the structural engineer of the WTC noted: "As of 21
days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running," at the National Conference of
Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001.

Source: clearstation.etrade.com...

I would imagine that a structural engineer of Leslie Robinson's stature would know what molten steel looks like as oppossed to just molten metal.



[edit on 6/5/2007 by Griff]

Griff ~

did this engineer actually witness the steel? Or was he going on hersay from firefighters etc. Also, I would like to know what damage would be done to the hydrolics of the heavy equipment that was used by the clean up crews. What temperature would allow this steel to be in the "molten" state?

Thanks

[edit on 5-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

I saw the YouTube video. That type of charge might work on rebar and small structural steel it would be more difficult on larger structures.

Yesterday I went to watch a bridge being blown up. I figured that I'd take some pictures to show what a structural steel structure looks like when it was exploded on purpose. When I got there I couldn't get within a half of a mile of the bridge. There was a 1000 yard exclusion zone around the bridge because of the tendency of explosives to spray chunks of metal around at high velocities. To keep this zone clear involved closing 3 major highways, 1 Interstate highway and the evacuation of several homes and businesses. If cutting charges like the one in the video could be used on large steel structures, don't you think that they would be used instead of high explosives on structures like this bridge? They would minimize the chances of damage or injury and greatly reduce the size of these exclusion zones and the expenses associated with them.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
this engineer actually witness the steel?

Since he and many other structural engineers were on-site, I'd have to say yes he did witness it first hand.

I would like to know what damage would be done to the hydrolics of the heavy equipment that was used by the clean up crews. What temperature would allow this steel to be in the "molten" state?

Not sure. I have heard that they had to stop opperations to cool the steel down before taking it out with equipment.

It was steel.

The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
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 3

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
...
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. 5

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:

Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:

Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7
An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:

As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

I am not saying it was or was not steel, but we may need to look at these a little closer.

Originally posted by Pootie
The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

This sounds like first hand account, but the "molten steel" was not tested. If it was there for five weeks, why not test it? It might have been different metals.

A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2

Ok this may be nitpicking, but if the steel beams are molten then they are no long beams. This might be a miss quote or an exageration.

A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating:
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 3

Is a vp of sales qualified to id molten steel. Maybe that's what he thought he saw, maybe molten metal. And why would he be in the wreckage during the rescue operations?

A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4

Again, maybe just molten metal.

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
...
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. 5

Second hand report. If the beams were totally melted, how did anyone know they were beams?

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

A public health investigator is id'ing molten steel. Again maybe second hand account.

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7

How would a public health advisor know he was really seeing molten steel and not some other metal.

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing an speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

Leslie Robertson now says he doesn’t recall making that statement

I just wanted to show that these quotes my not be 100% accurate.

Originally posted by numb99
Leslie Robertson now says he doesn’t recall making that statement

Too bad if he recalls it or not. He did. It's in their newsletter.

I have started a new thread about this so as not to derail this thread which is about Professor Jone's thermite/thermate samples.

Here is the link. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The link to the actual SEAU (Structural Engineers Association of Utah) article is in the OP.

Doubting their authenticity is not the same as proving them wrong.

There are images of beams being pulled up from Ground Zero, and other steel, molten on the ends opposite the excavating equipment. No one needs to listen to someone's testimony to evaluate this information.





There is also this:




The above coming directly from geologists that worked with the clean-up personnel at Ground Zero.

Please read what the graph is showing, in its own words.

And note that it isn't talking about the hot spots in general, because those persisted for months, not weeks.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Doubting their authenticity is not the same as proving them wrong.

Just showing that they might be wrong.

There are images of beams being pulled up from Ground Zero, and other steel, molten on the ends opposite the excavating equipment. No one needs to listen to someone's testimony to evaluate this information.

Please tell us who took this and exactly when and where this was taken. Random pictures do not proof anything. There is something dripping, but the metal is not molten or it could not be pick up like this. The glowing metal seems out of place, the rest of the metal is black.

There is also this:

The above coming directly from geologists that worked with the clean-up personnel at Ground Zero.

Please read what the graph is showing, in its own words.

And note that it isn't talking about the hot spots in general, because those persisted for months, not weeks.

Who were the geologist that made this graph. If I understand it, it seems to be showing relitive temps and not absolutes. The term "motel steel" is used, but there is no way to know if it is steel. There is a big difference between molten steel and molten metal.

Originally posted by numb99
Just showing that they might be wrong.

Noted. So we look further to see, yes?

Please tell us who took this and exactly when and where this was taken. Random pictures do not proof anything.

It is attributed to Frank Silecchia, and was taken on Sept. 27, 2001, in the North Tower's rubble pile. My source for this is Dr. Jones' paper, a copy of which with the above information is located here. You could contact Dr. Jones for more information, or probably even Mr. Silecchia.

Here is a photo of Mr. Silecchia, pulled off a Google hit talking about his experiences at Ground Zero:



And here is a video of the molten metal at Ground Zero: 911readingroom.org...

Mr. Silecchia also took this image, similar to the first one:




This should be sufficient for you to accept the photograph as is, or at least for you to do further research on your own if you still doubt its legitimacy.

There is something dripping, but the metal is not molten or it could not be pick up like this.

The color indicates that its not far from being liquid. By one definition of the word "molten", meaning basically "glowing from intense heat", it is molten, and as far as actually being liquid, we have no evidence that there wasn't any, and to the contrary, we have witness accounts that there WAS steel running like lava, as at least one person put it, or as in a foundry, as at least one other put it.

We have at least confirmed that steel was being pulled up molten on the ends. There were pockets of enormous heat buried in the pile, and this is what clean-up workers will tell you.

Who were the geologist that made this graph.

Hunter College Department of Geography. The whole paper is here: www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu...

If I understand it, it seems to be showing relitive temps and not absolutes.

No, it is showing "the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25."

The term "motel steel" is used, but there is no way to know if it is steel.

There's no way for you to know if Hunter College's Department of Geography wrote it, either, I guess, even though it's hosted on their website. Maybe someone hacked their website and uploaded it on their behalf?

There is a big difference between molten steel and molten metal.

Yes, and the existence of molten steel would be very significant. So far, we know SOMETHING was molten, and the only metal at Ground Zero in quantities enough to fit the description is steel.


What other metals were at Ground Zero that could possibly fit the witness testimonies, photographs, diagrams from studies, etc.? Give me another and we'll see how well it holds up against all of the available data.

[edit on 5-6-2007 by bsbray11]

it amazes me how far some people will stretch their rationalization 'skills' to try and mask the obvious truth.

there was molten steel. accept it.

steel getting to that state would also retain it's heat longer than a metal with a lower melting point, so lower temperatures, and, say melted babbit ot aluminum, don't cut it as an explanation. (also, because these metals are not yellow hot when they begin to flow)